BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) versus EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) versus EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

Clause 13 is an enabling provision using permissive language ("may be sought") and does not record a subsisting, binding consensus ad idem to submit present or future disputes to arbitration as required by Section 7; accordingly the High Court was justified in dismissing the Section 11 application and the appeal is dismissed. Additionally, the Referral Court must prima facie examine existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6-A) but need not conduct a full trial.

Parties
Appellant: BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV); Respondent: Eastern Coalfields Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Existence of an Arbitration Agreement, Section 11(6 A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Consensus (ad Idem), Enabling Clause, Juridical Seat, Referral Court Vs Arbitral Tribunal Competence
Arbitration Contract Existence of an Arbitration Agreement Section 11(6 A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Consensus (ad Idem) Enabling Clause Juridical Seat +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV)

Appellant

Eastern Coalfields Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the question of existence of an arbitration agreement should be left for the arbitral tribunal to decide
  2. 2 Whether clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions constitutes an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  3. 3 Whether clause 32 of the Instructions to Bidders negates the existence of an arbitration agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 13 is an enabling provision using permissive language ("may be sought") and does not record a subsisting, binding consensus ad idem to submit present or future disputes to arbitration as required by Section 7; accordingly the High Court was justified in dismissing the Section 11 application and the appeal is dismissed. Additionally, the Referral Court must prima facie examine existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6-A) but need not conduct a full trial.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • There is no order as to costs