The Supreme Court of India has clarified that its recent judgment in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria vs. M/s. Bharat Textiles & Ors. was not intended to rewrite the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or to compel the substitution of an arbitrator in every instance where an extension of the mandate is sought.
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, passed this observation while hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Viva Highways Ltd against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Apex Court has issued notice in the matter and stayed the proceedings before the High Court until the next date of hearing.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a challenge to a final judgment and order dated December 2, 2025, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in MCC No. 2699/2025.
In the impugned order, the High Court had relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria vs. M/s. Bharat Textiles & Ors. (2025 INSC 1409). The petitioner, Viva Highways Ltd, approached the Supreme Court contending that the High Court’s reliance on the said precedent required examination, specifically regarding the interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arguments and Court’s Observation
During the hearing, the Supreme Court addressed the High Court’s reference to the Mohan Lal Fatehpuria judgment. Justice Sanjay Kumar, who was also part of the Bench that delivered the Mohan Lal Fatehpuria verdict, clarified the legislative and judicial intent regarding the extension of an arbitrator’s mandate.
The Court observed:
“In the impugned order, reference was made by the High Court to judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria vs. M/s. Bharat Textiles & Ors. However, the intention of this Court in the said judgment, to which one of us (Sanjay Kumar, J.) was a party, was not to rewrite the provisions of Sections 29A(4), 29A(5) and 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and compel substitution of the arbitrator in every case of extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.”
The Bench further noted that this position is substantiated by the fact that the Mohan Lal Fatehpuria judgment had adverted to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494).
The Decision
After hearing the Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the Supreme Court issued notice, returnable on February 6, 2026.
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate-on-Record for the first respondent (Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd), waived service and accepted notice in court. The Court directed that notice be served upon the unrepresented second respondent by all modes, including dasti.
Significantly, the Supreme Court granted interim relief, directing:
“The High Court shall not proceed in the matter till the next hearing.”
The matter is listed for the next hearing on February 6, 2026. The Court directed that the case be listed before a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, subject to orders from the Chief Justice of India.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Viva Highways Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd & Anr.
- Case No: SLP(C) No. 38327/2025
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR, Ms. Chetna Alagh, Adv.
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR, Mr. Swastik Singh, Adv., Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Gupta, Adv., Ms. Muskaan, Adv.
