The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), thereby upholding an arbitral award passed in favour of Canadian engineering firm R.V. Anderson Associates Limited.
The Court ruled that the arbitral tribunal had been properly constituted and that the challenge raised by MCGM regarding the appointment of the presiding arbitrator lacked merit. The judgment affirmed earlier rulings of the Bombay High Court, which had refused to interfere with the award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Judges, Says Allegations Based
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a consultancy contract awarded by MCGM in 1995 for upgrading sewerage operations and maintenance systems in Mumbai. The project, funded by the World Bank, involved consultancy services aimed at improving sewage handling facilities and operational protocols.
R.V. Anderson Associates, in collaboration with a Mumbai-based consultancy firm, emerged as the successful bidder. The agreement required completion of work within 72 months, and the project concluded in June 2001 with submission of the final report.
However, disagreements soon arose over payment of outstanding dues. After discussions between the parties failed to resolve the issue, the consultancy firm invoked the arbitration clause in August 2005. Each party appointed its own arbitrator, and the two arbitrators were tasked with appointing a presiding arbitrator to constitute a three-member tribunal.
Eventually, the tribunal passed an arbitral award in June 2010 directing MCGM to pay significant amounts in both US dollars and Indian rupees along with interest and arbitration costs.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore In FIR Over Posts On PM
Proceedings Before the High Court
MCGM challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Bombay High Court. The municipal body raised several objections, including alleged improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal, limitation issues, and the award of interest.
The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the challenge in October 2022, holding that the tribunal’s interpretation of the arbitration clause was reasonable and that no grounds existed for setting aside the award.
MCGM subsequently filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, but the Division Bench also dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the Single Judge and the arbitral tribunal.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Ombudsman Proceedings Against Village Officer, Says He Is Not
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, MCGM narrowed its challenge to a single issue - whether the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the presiding arbitrator had been appointed after the expiry of the 30-day period mentioned in the contract.
According to MCGM, once that period expired, the presiding arbitrator could only have been appointed by the Secretary General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The municipal corporation argued that the appointment made by the two arbitrators themselves was contrary to the contractual clause and therefore rendered the tribunal improperly constituted.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court carefully examined the arbitration clause and concluded that the provision allowing the ICSID Secretary General to appoint the presiding arbitrator was merely an enabling mechanism.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Termination of Power Board Worker Over Matric Certificate from
It did not automatically remove the authority of the two arbitrators to make the appointment if the 30-day period expired.
“The clause only gives liberty to the parties to approach ICSID if the arbitrators fail to appoint a presiding arbitrator within thirty days,” the bench observed.
The Court noted that neither party had approached ICSID to trigger this alternative mechanism. In such circumstances, the appointment made by the co-arbitrators could not be treated as invalid.
The bench further emphasised that courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must adopt a restrained approach. If the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the contract is plausible, courts should not interfere merely because another interpretation may also be possible.
Conduct of the Parties
Another important factor highlighted by the Court was the conduct of MCGM during the arbitration process.
The Court noted that the municipal corporation had participated in arbitration proceedings for years without raising any objection to the appointment of the presiding arbitrator. In fact, three different individuals were appointed as presiding arbitrator at different stages before MCGM raised its objection.
“The conduct of the appellant shows that it never interpreted the arbitration clause in the manner it now seeks to argue,” the bench observed.
The Court added that parties cannot keep a jurisdictional objection in reserve and raise it only after proceedings have substantially progressed.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Salary of PSU Employees Cannot Decide OBC Creamy Layer Status; 2004 Clarificatio
Supreme Court’s Decision
After examining the arbitration clause, the findings of the tribunal, and the conduct of the parties, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted.
The Court also held that the interpretation adopted by the tribunal and upheld by the High Court was a plausible one and did not warrant interference under the limited scope of judicial review provided in arbitration matters.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by MCGM and upheld the arbitral award.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23846–23847 of 2025
Decision Date: 11 March 2026
