Legal Review and Analysis of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited & Others 2025 INSC 1365
Case Synopsis
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1365
Synopsis Headline: Pro-Arbitration Paradigm: Supreme Court Upholds Severability and Censures Review of Section 11 Orders
Synopsis: The Supreme Court, championing a pro-arbitration stance, ruled that a unilateral and exclusionary arbitrator appointment clause in a contract is severable. The core agreement to arbitrate remains valid and enforceable. It categorically held that a High Court cannot review its own order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the A&C Act, as the statute provides no such power and mandates minimal judicial intervention. The Court also distinguished between the strict waiver requirements for arbitrator ineligibility and waiver by conduct for procedural objections.
Legal Review and Analysis of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited & Others
1. Bench Details and Case Citation
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1365 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Judgment: November 28, 2025
2. Relevant Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment extensively interprets and applies the following key provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act):
Section 5: Extent of judicial intervention.
Section 7: Definition and form of an arbitration agreement.
Section 11: Appointment of arbitrators.
Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule: Grounds for ineligibility and waiver.
Section 4: Waiver of right to object.
Section 29A: Time limit for arbitral award and extension of mandate.
Section 14 & 15: Termination of arbitrator's mandate and substitution.
Section 16: Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.
Section 18: Equal treatment of parties.
The judgment also relies on constitutional principles under Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Equality before law) and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. Judgment Analysis: Facts, Issues, and Reasoning
A. Factual Matrix
The dispute arose from a contract dated 04.03.2014 between Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (Appellant) and Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. (Respondent) for constructing a bridge. The contract contained Clause 25, which provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. The key feature of Clause 25 was that the Managing Director of the respondent was the sole appointing authority for the arbitrator. Crucially, it also stated that "if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitrator at all."
After an initial arbitration was completed, the appellant raised fresh claims. As the Managing Director failed to appoint an arbitrator, the appellant approached the Patna High Court under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The High Court appointed a sole arbitrator in August 2021. The parties actively participated in the arbitration for over three years, conducting more than 70 hearings and jointly seeking extensions of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A. At the stage of final arguments, the respondents filed a review petition before the High Court. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, reviewed its own 2021 order and dismissed the appellant's Section 11 application, holding that the arbitration clause was no longer valid.
B. Core Legal Issues Addressed
The Supreme Court framed and answered the following three core issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court to Review its Section 11 Order: Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to review or recall its earlier order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act.
Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement: Whether Clause 25 of the contract constituted a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the A&C Act.
Waiver of Objections: Whether the parties' joint applications for extending the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A amounted to a waiver of objections, including any under Section 12(5).
C. Ratio Decidendi: The Court's Reasoning and Core Principles
Issue 1: On the High Court's Power of Review
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing its Section 11 order. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the fundamental policy of the A&C Act, which mandates minimal judicial intervention.
Self-Contained Code: The A&C Act is a self-contained code. Section 5 expressly restricts judicial intervention only to the instances provided for in the Act. The Act does not provide for a review of an order passed under Section 11.
Functus Officio: Once the High Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11, it becomes functus officio (its authority over the matter ceases). It cannot sit in appeal or review its own decision.
Finality and Certainty: Allowing such reviews would undermine the finality of the arbitral process and encourage parties to delay proceedings. The respondents' proper recourse was to challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 before the tribunal itself or to appeal the award under Section 34 after it was passed.
Issue 2: On the Validity of the Arbitration Clause (Clause 25)
This was the central legal battle. The Supreme Court held that a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement did exist. The Court dismantled the respondent's arguments as follows:
Severability of the Arbitration Agreement: The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of severability. The core of Clause 25 was the parties' agreement to refer disputes to arbitration. The specific procedure for appointment (by the Managing Director) was a separate, ancillary part. The Supreme Court, citing its Constitution Bench in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (2025), held that such unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts are void as they violate the principle of impartiality and are arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The "Negative Covenant" is Void: The part of Clause 25 that stated "if appointment by Managing Director is not possible, there shall be no arbitration" was declared void and unenforceable. The Court reasoned that this "negative covenant" was arbitrary, vague, and would give one party a "nuclear veto" to frustrate the entire arbitration. Such a clause cannot override the parties' central intention to arbitrate.
Conduct of Parties Evidences Agreement: The Court emphasized that the parties' conduct—active participation for three years, 70+ hearings, and joint requests for extension—conclusively demonstrated their intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement, as recognized under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act.
Issue 3: On Waiver of Objections
The Court drew a clear distinction between different types of waiver:
Section 12(5) Ineligibility: The ineligibility of an arbitrator under the Seventh Schedule to the Act (e.g., due to a conflict of interest) can only be waived by an express written agreement post-dispute. A joint application for extension under Section 29A does not constitute such an express waiver.
Section 4 Waiver (Procedural): For all other procedural objections (like challenging the jurisdiction or the validity of the appointment clause), a party can waive its right by conduct. By jointly applying for extensions under Section 29A and participating fully without raising these objections for years, the respondents had waived their right to object under Section 4 of the A&C Act.
4. Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Patna High Court.
The Supreme Court directed the Patna High Court to appoint a substitute arbitrator within two weeks.
The newly appointed arbitrator was directed to continue the proceedings from the stage they were interrupted (i.e., the final arguments stage) and to endeavor to conclude them within one year.
The Court strongly criticized the conduct of the respondent, a public sector undertaking, for its indifference and failure to act as a model litigant, issuing a stern warning against such behavior in the future.
MCQs Based on the Judgment
1. In the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. (2025 INSC 1365), the Supreme Court held that a clause in an arbitration agreement which states that "if the appointment of an arbitrator by a designated authority is not possible, there shall be no arbitration at all" is?
(a) Valid and binding, as it reflects party autonomy.
(b) Severable from the main arbitration agreement, with the core agreement to arbitrate surviving.
(c) A contingent contract that becomes operative upon the failure of the appointment procedure.
(d) An express waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. According to the Supreme Court's ruling in this judgment, what is the legal consequence of parties jointly applying for an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the A&C Act, after having participated in the proceedings for a substantial time?
(a) It constitutes an express written waiver of ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Act.
(b) It renders the arbitration agreement null and void.
(c) It signifies a waiver of procedural objections under Section 4 of the Act, but not of Section 12(5) ineligibility.
(d) It allows the High Court to automatically review its earlier order under Section 11.
Blog Posts
