New Delhi, Sep 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea questioning whether arbitral tribunals seated in India can override institutional arbitration rules agreed upon by parties on the grounds of equity and “interest of justice.”
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld a tribunal’s decision to condone an 84-day delay by Doosan Power Systems India in filing its statement of defence and counterclaim under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) Rules.
The dispute stemmed from a subcontract agreement dated December 27, 2017, between Aneja Constructions and Doosan Power Systems.
The agreement provided that disputes would be governed by the ICA Rules, which mandate that a statement of defence be filed within 60 days of receiving the request for arbitration, with an extension “not exceeding thirty days.”
Despite the 84-day delay, a three-member tribunal led by Justice (retd.) Vikramajit Sen condoned the lapse on July 11, 2025, holding that it retained power to extend timelines in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the restrictive wording of Rule 18(a).
Aneja Constructions challenged the tribunal’s order, but the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition on August 6, 2025, ruling that the Rules “are meant to guide and not bind” and that tribunals may exercise discretion to condone delays in appropriate cases.
In its special leave petition before the apex court, Aneja argued that both the tribunal and the High Court overlooked Section 2(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which deems institutional rules chosen by parties to form part of the arbitration agreement.
The petitioner contended that condoning the delay amounted to “rewriting the contract” and undermined party autonomy.
Reliance was also placed on the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, which emphasized the mandatory nature of “not exceeding” clauses.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected these submissions and affirmed that arbitral tribunals retain wide discretion to extend procedural timelines in the interest of justice.
Aneja Constructions was represented by Advocates Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Aditya Maheshwari, and Ishaan Pratap Singh from Sim & San.
SC upholds tribunal’s power to extend timelines beyond institutional rules
