Vasishtha Projects vs Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Both these Applications are filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ) seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under the agreement dated July 12, 2017 ( “Agreement” ). The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 20 of the Agreement (found at Page Nos. 20 to 24 of the Application). In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶11

The objection on behalf of the Respondent is that the arbitration clause contained with Clause 20 under the title “Claim Disputes and Arbitration” is evidently drafted to cover disputes and differences between the engineer and the contractor and not the disputes between employer and the contractor. I am unable to accept this contention. Clause 20(III)

¶12

Page 1 of 4 July 4, 2025

¶13

Purti Parab

¶14

521-CARAPL-34001-2024 @ CARAP-263-2024.doc

¶15

specifically refers to the terms “employer” and “contractor” as the parties having a dispute. Consequently, there is no doubt that the parties had executed an arbitration agreement necessitating reference of all disputes and differences to the arbitration.

¶16

The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to the Supreme Court’s decision rendered by a seven-judge Bench in the Interplay Judgement¹ followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

¶17

Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in connection with the aforesaid Agreement to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

¶18

In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping these matters pending any further on the docket of this Court. Both these Applications are finally disposed of in the following terms:-

¶19

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 - (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶20

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶21

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel Vs. Jyotrindra S. Patel - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597

Page 2 of 4

July 4, 2025

Purti Parab

521-CARAPL-34001-2024 @ CARAP-263-2024.doc

¶26

A] Ms. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, a Learned Advocate of this Court is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Agreement referred to above; Address : 1W, Dilwara West, 1^st Floor, Next to Cooperage Tel. Exchange, M. Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 021. E mail : [email protected]

¶27

B] A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocate for the Applicant within a period of one week from the date on which this order is uploaded on the website of this Court. The Applicant shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order;

¶28

C] The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocate for the Applicant so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of this Application and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocate for the Applicant to the Respondents;

¶29

D] The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶30

Page 3 of 4 July 4, 2025

¶31

Purti Parab

¶32

521-CARAPL-34001-2024 @ CARAP-263-2024.doc

¶33

Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

¶34

E] All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.

¶35

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

¶36

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶37

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶38

Page 4 of 4 July 4, 2025

¶39

Purti Parab

Vasishtha Projects v. Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasishtha Projects v. Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Manormal Mehta vs Prakash H Jain

Cirex Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs the New India Assurance Company Limited

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Sureshbabu Alagar

Mdh Development Corporation vs Bhairavi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Pvr Inox limited vs Supreme Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sany Heavy Industry India Pvt. Ltd. vs Prakash Kumar and Anr.