Case Law
Subject : Arbitration Law - Challenge to Arbitral Award
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has granted an interim stay on the execution of an arbitral award, observing a prima facie violation of the principles of natural justice. The court, presided over by Justice Shampa Sarkar, noted that a key document was introduced late in the proceedings, denying one party a fair opportunity to respond.
The decision came in the case of Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited vs M/S. FEPL Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AP-COM/64/2025), where the petitioner, Bridge and Roof Company, sought an unconditional stay on the execution of an award passed by the Facilitation Council of Konkan.
The petitioner challenged the arbitral award on two primary grounds. First, it was argued that the award was delivered by a four-member panel, whereas the Facilitation Council was constituted with five members as per the official notification. This raised questions about the proper composition of the arbitral tribunal.
Second, and more critically, the petitioner contended that a crucial document, which heavily influenced the award, was submitted by the award-holder, M/s. FEPL Engineering, only at the final stage as part of their written arguments.
Ms. Meharia, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, argued forcefully that this late submission deprived her client of the opportunity to counter the document's contents or explain the context in which it was issued. She asserted that had such an opportunity been granted, it could have altered the outcome of the arbitration.
The petitioner's counsel maintained that this failure to disclose evidence during the hearing stage constituted a severe breach of natural justice, thereby making a strong case for an unconditional stay of the award's execution.
Justice Shampa Sarkar, in the order, acknowledged the weight of the petitioner's arguments. The court made a preliminary finding that the principles of natural justice appear to have been violated.
The judgment noted:
"In view of non-disclosure of documents at the stage of hearing, the principle of natural justice appears to have been violated. These observations are prima facie as the award holder must be afforded an opportunity to deal with these factual aspects."
The court emphasized that while these were initial observations, they were sufficient to warrant a stay to allow the award-holder to present their side of the story regarding the alleged procedural lapses.
The High Court has directed the respondent (M/s. FEPL Engineering) to file an affidavit in opposition within a week after the Puja Vacation, with the petitioner given a week thereafter to file a reply.
The application for an unconditional stay has been scheduled for hearing on November 17, 2025. In the interim, the court has extended the stay on the execution proceeding until November 30, 2025, providing temporary relief to the petitioner. This order underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that arbitral proceedings adhere to fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
#ArbitrationLaw #NaturalJustice #CalcuttaHighCourt
'Justice Must Be Seen To Be Done': Supreme Court Remands Disciplinary Proceedings Over Bias in Authority
13 Apr 2026
Willful Disobedience of Interim Order by Mortgaging & Selling Property is Contempt Despite Apology: Andhra Pradesh High Court
13 Apr 2026
Inordinate Delay and Laches Bar Post-Retirement Service Regularisation Claims: Patna High Court
13 Apr 2026
Tainted One-Sided Investigation Warrants Acquittal in 302/34 IPC Murder Case: Allahabad High Court
13 Apr 2026
Religious Mutt is Legal Representative Entitled to Dependency Compensation for Mathadipati's Road Accident Death: Karnataka High Court
13 Apr 2026
Kejriwal Lists 10 Reasons for Judge Recusal in Excise Case
13 Apr 2026
Assam Challenges Pawan Khera's Transit Bail in Supreme Court
13 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Seeks Response on Biometric Voter Verification
13 Apr 2026
Brother Not 'Family' Under Clause 5(s)(2) Pension Scheme 1981, Can't Claim Arrears If Mother Never Applied: Calcutta HC
13 Apr 2026
Mere Administrative Exigency Can't Invoke Urgency Clause u/s 17 LA Act 1894, Dispensing S.5A Invalid: Allahabad HC
13 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.