In high-stakes infrastructure arbitration, legal knowledge isn't a deliverable — it's the minimum entry requirement. Yet, time and again, we see arbitration matters involving public authorities and EPC contractors slowed down not by legal complexity, but by legal counsel trying to get up to speed — on contracts, project context, procedural history, or worse, changes in the law itself.
And in Maharashtra's infrastructure landscape — with megaprojects underway across MMRC, MSRDC, CIDCO, MMRDA, and BMC — the cost of playing catch-up is no longer tenable.
Arbitration in Maharashtra Is Changing — Fast
Over the past 24 months, there's been an unmistakable shift in the way infrastructure arbitrations are being handled across Maharashtra. Here's what we're seeing:
- Increased Volume of Arbitrations: According to media and government data, over ₹1.1 lakh crore is currently under dispute across Indian infrastructure contracts, with Maharashtra being a key contributor. Projects like Mumbai Metro Line 3, Coastal Road, CIDCO housing, and port infrastructure have each triggered arbitrations at multiple tiers — principal contractor, subcontractor, and joint venture levels.
- More Procedural Tightness: Following the Supreme Court's push for time-bound arbitrations under Section 29A, tribunals are moving faster. There's less patience for adjournments and document delays.
- Frequent High Court Intervention: Given that most infra contracts are governed by Mumbai-seated arbitration clauses, Section 9, 11, and 34 proceedings before the Bombay High Court are routine — and increasingly, unforgiving.
- Policy Shifts: In 2024, Maharashtra issued a revised framework under the Maharashtra Stamp (Amendment) Ordinance, increasing stamp duty on arbitration awards — a critical cost consideration missed by several stakeholders.
- Rise of Multi-Tier Disputes: Especially in urban transport and housing, subcontractor and vendor disputes are escalating independently of the main EPC contracts, creating parallel arbitrations with overlapping claims.
What Happens When Legal Teams Are Behind the Curve?
The real risks of counsel being underprepared aren't just inefficiencies. They directly affect outcomes.
1. Procedural Errors
In one recent Section 34 challenge before the Bombay High Court, a delay in filing the challenge by even five days (due to misinterpretation of the award timeline) led to dismissal at the admission stage. [Union of India vs Babulal Bhuramal Agarwal (2022 Bom HC), ONGC vs Deep Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court, 2019)] That's not a legal mistake. That's a familiarity failure.
2. Lack of Project-Specific Context
Each infrastructure dispute is multi-layered — involving issues like site delays, third-party NOCs, force majeure events, and project variations. Without a prior understanding of how these factors typically unfold in local projects, there's a high risk of misframing claims. For example, in CIDCO-linked housing projects, delays often arise from the complex relationship between project milestones and the timing of land allotments — a nuance that firms unfamiliar with CIDCO's project cycle frequently overlook.
3. Wasted Billable Hours
When counsel spends 20–30 hours reading through DPRs and correspondence trails that a sector-familiar firm would skim through in half a day, clients don't just lose time — they lose narrative control.
The Value of Being Prepared Is Quantifiable
An arbitration practice that is ready to tackle these ground realities of 2025, is designed not around "catching up," but around being pre-informed.
For instance, in subcontractor disputes linked to Mumbai Metro Aqua Line, we've observed that being aware of prior arbitration outcomes — especially involving the same tribunal chair — can be crucial. In one 2022 matter, the tribunal's stance on evidentiary objections during cross-examination significantly shaped the course of proceedings. Having a map of such tribunal tendencies can help anticipate challenges and tailor strategy early.
Similarly, in another matter involving MMRDA's Metro Line 7, a party's attempt to seek interim relief under Section 9 was rejected by the Bombay High Court, citing the multi-tier nature of the project and the availability of arbitration. This precedent has become a useful reference point for parties evaluating whether to pursue injunctions or accelerate tribunal constitution instead — a choice that could save weeks of delay and considerable cost.
What Does Being "Off the Learning Curve" Actually Look Like?
Let's break it down technically. A firm that isn't playing catch-up possesses:
- Contract Matrix Familiarity: Faster claims framing, especially for EPC/DBO/PPP models
- Tribunal Mapping: Anticipating tribunal preferences, procedural inclinations
- Local Dispute Context: Knowing what delays are systemic vs project-specific
- Policy & Regulatory Tracking: Advising on stamp duty, data requirements, or tender restrictions proactively
- Section 34 Precedents Knowing what Bombay HC is rejecting (and why)
This isn't about having a good memory. It's about building internal knowledge systems.
Counsel Is Not Just Legal — It's Operational
In infrastructure arbitrations, lawyers don't just interpret contracts. They:
- Decode project chronologies
- Liaise with engineers, QS teams, and PMC consultants
- Manage documentation from multiple work fronts
- Explain risks to internal finance or tender teams
When a legal team walks in already aware of what MMRC's standard subcontract clauses look like, or what CIDCO's claims settlement history is, that institutional readiness builds trust — and saves months.
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.
