The Supreme Court has upheld a tribunal’s discretion to condone Doosan Power’s 84-day delay in filing its defence, ruling that arbitral rules “are meant to guide and not bind.” The Court rejected Aneja Constructions’ plea, affirming party autonomy remains subject to fairness and justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a plea that questioned whether an arbitral tribunal seated in India can go beyond the strict timelines mentioned in institutional arbitration rules, if required, for reasons of equity and “interest of justice.”
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, who refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment.
That High Court ruling had earlier upheld the tribunal’s decision to condone a long delay of 84 days by Doosan Power Systems India in filing its statement of defence and counterclaim under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) Rules.
The dispute began with a subcontract agreement signed on December 27, 2017, between Aneja Constructions and Doosan Power Systems. The contract provided that any dispute would be resolved through arbitration as per the ICA Rules.
According to Rule 18(a) of the ICA Rules, a party has to file its statement of defence within 60 days of receiving the request for arbitration. The rule permits an extension, but strictly “not exceeding thirty days.”
In this case, Doosan filed its defence 84 days late. Despite the clear wording of Rule 18(a), on July 11, 2025, a three-member arbitral tribunal led by Justice (retd.) Vikramajit Sen condoned the delay.
The tribunal said it “retains the power to extend the timelines in the interest of justice” even though the rule uses restrictive language.
The tribunal further observed that while the words
“not exceeding thirty days” looked strict, the ICA Rules had not used them “in a binding sense.”
Aneja Constructions challenged this order before the Delhi High Court. But on August 6, 2025, Justice Manoj Jain dismissed their petition.
He held that “the Rules are meant to guide and not bind” and emphasized that tribunals have the discretion to condone delay whenever the circumstances justify it.
Dissatisfied, Aneja moved the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition. The company argued that both the tribunal and the High Court had ignored Section 2(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which says that when parties choose institutional arbitration rules, those rules become part of their arbitration agreement.
According to Aneja, by allowing a delay far beyond the ICA Rules’ maximum limit, the tribunal had essentially “re-written the contract” and thereby weakened the principle of party autonomy in arbitration.
The petitioner also cited the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, stressing that the words “not exceeding” should be seen as a firm and absolute cap.
However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It dismissed Aneja’s plea and upheld the Delhi High Court’s reasoning, making it clear that arbitral tribunals in India continue to enjoy wide discretion to extend timelines “in the interest of justice,” even if the institutional rules appear restrictive on paper.
In this case, Aneja Constructions was represented by Advocates Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Aditya Maheshwari, and Ishaan Pratap Singh from Sim & San.
Case Title:
Aneja Constructions v. Doosan Power Systems India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Byju
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
