Arbitration At Large: Reasserting Jurisdictional Clarity And Procedural Pragmatism In Construction Disputes

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 4, decided on 5 January 2026) represents a decisive reaffirmation of pro-arbitration principles under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

 The judgment addresses recurring tensions in construction arbitrations arising from multi-tier dispute resolution clauses and the scope of arbitral jurisdiction, particularly where procedural objections are raised belatedly or selectively.

The dispute arose out of four road maintenance contracts awarded under the Kerala State Transport Project. The contractual framework provided for a tiered dispute resolution mechanism: disputes were first to be considered by the Engineer, then referred to an Adjudicator within fourteen days if the contractor was dissatisfied, and thereafter capable of being referred to arbitration within twenty-eight days of the Adjudicator’s decision. The Adjudicator rendered a decision covering four disputes, partly in favour of the contractor and partly against it.

The State subsequently expressed its intention to refer only one of the disputes to arbitration, and that too after the expiry of the twenty-eight-day period stipulated in the contract. The contractor objected to the delay but nonetheless nominated its arbitrator. Significantly, the contractor also made it clear that if the Adjudicator’s decision was to be reopened, it would raise all outstanding disputes before the arbitral tribunal. Once constituted, the tribunal entertained all four disputes and ultimately rendered an award entirely in favour of the contractor.

The award was set aside by the District Judge under Section 34 and that decision was affirmed by the High Court in appeal under Section 37. The High Court reasoned that the arbitral tribunal had been appointed only to adjudicate the single dispute referred by the State and that the contractor’s failure to issue a separate notice under Section 21 of the Act in respect of the remaining disputes was fatal to its claims. The Supreme Court disagreed on both counts and restored the award in its entirety.

The foundation of the Court’s reasoning lay in its scrutiny of the State’s conduct. The State had not objected before the Adjudicator on the ground that the reference was barred by limitation under the contractual escalation clause. In fact it had itself invoked arbitration beyond the prescribed twenty-eight-day window. It had declined to treat the Adjudicator’s decision as final and binding and had withheld payments on the basis that the matter was under arbitration. Most importantly, before the arbitral tribunal, it sought to declare the entire Adjudicator’s decision null and void. Having thus reopened the dispute framework in its entirety, the State could not subsequently contend that the tribunal’s jurisdiction was confined to a single issue. The Court invoked the settled principle that no party can be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong and relied on earlier precedent emphasising that procedural preconditions in escalation clauses, though significant, are capable of waiver through conduct.

Equally significant is the Court’s treatment of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court had effectively elevated the issuance of a Section 21 notice to a jurisdictional prerequisite. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 21 has a narrow procedural scope, namely, to fix the date on which arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence for the calculation of limitation. It does not define or restrict the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal’s authority flows from the arbitration agreement itself and not from the invocation notice. Where an arbitration clause is broadly worded and encompasses all disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract, the tribunal is not confined to disputes specifically enumerated in the notice of invocation unless the contract expressly so provides.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reaffirmed earlier jurisprudence recognising that claims may be expanded or supplemented under Section 23 of the Act and that counterclaims may be raised so long as they fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The absence of a specific Section 21 notice in respect of certain claims may have implications for limitation, but it does not render those claims non-arbitrable or beyond jurisdiction. This distinction between procedural commencement and substantive jurisdiction is of considerable doctrinal importance and reinforces a pragmatic and arbitration-friendly interpretive approach.

The Court also examined the breadth of the arbitration clause in the underlying contracts. The clause in the instant case referred to disputes or differences “arising out of or connected with” the agreement. Such language, the Court observed, is of wide amplitude. In the absence of a contractual restriction confining the arbitrator to specifically referred disputes, the constitution of the arbitral tribunal itself constitutes an implied reference of all disputes falling within the arbitration agreement. The High Court’s attempt to narrow the reference based solely on the initial letter issued by the State was therefore misplaced.

Beyond its immediate factual matrix, the judgment carries broader implications for arbitration practice in India. It underscores that escalation clauses are not to be converted into technical snares. Courts will look at the entirety of party conduct rather than mechanically enforcing procedural stipulations divorced from context. It further signals judicial reluctance to allow Section 21 to be deployed as a post facto jurisdictional objection, particularly where the arbitration agreement itself is comprehensive and the parties have participated in the proceedings without consistent objection.

The decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s continuing effort to minimise judicial interference with arbitral awards and to preserve the integrity of arbitral processes. By restoring the award, the Court reaffirmed that arbitral tribunals are competent to adjudicate all disputes falling within a broadly framed arbitration clause and that procedural objections must be raised in a timely and principled manner.

In conclusion, Bhagheeratha Engineering stands as a reminder that arbitration is intended to resolve disputes efficiently and finally. Procedural provisions are designed to facilitate that objective, not to frustrate it. The Court’s insistence on substance over hyper-technicality strengthens confidence in India’s arbitration regime and reinforces the foundational principle that jurisdiction in arbitration emanates from the agreement of the parties, not from the form of the notice invoking it.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.