In a significant ruling on enforcement of arbitral consent awards, the Supreme Court on April 13, 2026, directed the promoters of a hospital group to pay over ₹15.86 crore to VPS Healthcare and Medeor Hospitals. The Court overturned a Delhi High Court decision that had delayed enforcement of the award.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a share purchase deal in 2016, when VPS Healthcare acquired Rockland Hospitals (later renamed Medeor). As part of resolving disputes with the original promoters, both sides entered into a compromise agreement in February 2019. This agreement was formalized through a consent award issued by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC).
Under the agreement, the promoters undertook to handle ongoing litigation, including a separate arbitration initiated by Ernst & Young (EY), and to ensure that no financial liability arising from those proceedings would fall on VPS/Medeor.
In 2021, an arbitral tribunal awarded ₹10 crore plus interest in favour of EY against Medeor. To secure a stay on execution, Medeor was directed to deposit the award amount, which eventually exceeded ₹15.86 crore.
The Delhi High Court had deferred enforcement of the consent award. It reasoned that the promoters’ obligation to pay would arise only after the liability was confirmed by the “highest court of appeal.”
The High Court treated the clause as a contract of indemnity and concluded that the enforcement petition was premature because the EY award was still under challenge.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, pointing out inconsistencies in the High Court’s reasoning.
“The High Court… adopts a conclusion that contradicts its own interpretation of the contract,” the bench noted.
The Court emphasized that the clause required the promoters to ensure that no liability is recovered from VPS/Medeor at any stage of the proceedings not just after final confirmation by the highest appellate court.
Importantly, the bench clarified that the obligation was not merely contingent. It observed that once Medeor was compelled to deposit the amount to prevent execution, a “crystallised liability” had already arisen.
“The word ‘ensure’… points to an absolute obligation, and not a contingent obligation,” the Court explained.
The judges also warned that accepting the promoters’ interpretation would create a loophole, allowing them to delay payment indefinitely by prolonging litigation.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and held that the consent award was immediately enforceable.
The Court directed the promoters to pay or deposit ₹15,86,17,808 within 30 days for the benefit of VPS/Medeor. It clarified that this payment would remain subject to the final outcome of ongoing proceedings related to the EY arbitration.
With this, the Court concluded that the enforcement petition was valid and could not be deferred merely because appeals were pending.
Case Details
Case Title: VPS Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava & Anr
Case Number: Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23869 of 2023)
Judge: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: April 13, 2026
