Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 3525 Patna

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3525 Patna
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2025

Patna High Court

S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2025

Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         REQUEST CASE No.16 of 2021
     ======================================================
     S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. A Company incorporated under the
     provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having Registered Office at 1006-
     1007, Pearls Best Height 1, A-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi
     110034 and Its Corporate Office at 47 Sector-9, Panchkula (Haryana) through
     its Authorized Representative, Mr. A.K. Mirchandani, Male, aged 72 years
     son of Shri Karamchand Lilaram Mirchandani, resident of House No. 109,
     Sector 7, Panchkula, P.S. Sector 7, P.O. Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana.


                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, having office at
     Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
2.   Chief Engineer/Con/ GB, East Central Railway Hajipur, having office at
     Mahendrughat, Patna- 800004.


                                                                ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
                                    Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Advocate
                                    Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
                                    Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG
                                    Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
                                    Mr. Amarjeet, JC to ASG
                                    Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, JC to ASG
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
     ORAL JUDGMENT

     Date : 29-04-2025

                       A request petition had been filed by the

      petitioner before this Court vide Request Case No. 16 of

      2021,        which    was     rejected      vide     judgment         dated
 Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.16 of 2021 dt.29-04-2025
                                           2/6




         15.12.2021.

                         2

. The parties had entered into a written

agreement for construction of sub-structure above well

cap & super structure of South approach Rail via-duct in

connection with Ganga Rail-cum-Road Bridge Project,

Patna dated 05.07.2010. The agreement contained

clause No. 63 for settlement of disputes.

3. A communication was made by the

petitioner to the General Manager, East Central Railway

specifying the claims and the nature of dispute between

the parties, which communication was not responded by

the railways.

4. This Court, vide judgment dated

15.12.2021, referred to above, found that the conditions

of clause 63 were not fulfilled. It was also noted that the

Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway

Electrification vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) :

(2020) 14 SCC 712 has clearly held that the procedure

for appointment in the CGC has to be followed and given Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.16 of 2021 dt.29-04-2025

effect to by the parties, which, in the instant case, had not

been complied with.

5. The Court, therefore, was left with no

option but to reject the petition, but reserving the liberty

to the petitioner to take recourse to the procedure agreed

upon to be followed by the parties.

6. The order was subjected to challenge

before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4752 of

2025. The Supreme Court, on taking note of the fact that

the respondent/railways had, during the proceedings

before the High Court under Section 11(6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, suggested a panel

of Officers for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal, signifying

that the respondents were agreeable for appointment of

an Arbitral Tribunal and that the Constitution Bench

judgment of the Supreme Court in Central

Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. ECI

SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Co. : 2024

SCC OnLine SC 3219 ruled that though neither public Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.16 of 2021 dt.29-04-2025

policy considerations under the Contract Act or the

Arbitration Act restrain the parties to the arbitration from

maintaining a panel of arbitrators in any manner, but the

arbitration agreements enabling one of the parties to

unilaterally to constitute Arbitral Tribunal may not inspire

confidence of independence and may violate the public

policy requirement of constituting an independent and

impartial tribunal, remanded the matter to this Court for

appointment of Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the decision

of the Constitution Bench, referred to above.

7. The parties have been heard.

8. The petitioner suggested his nominee, viz.,

Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.A. Ansari, former Chief Justice of

the Patna High Court.

9. The respondents did not suggest any

nominee and left it to the discretion of this Court.

10. As such, this Court appoints Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, a retired Supreme

Court Judge and Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.A. Ansari, former Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.16 of 2021 dt.29-04-2025

Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, to be the two

Arbitrators, who shall appoint the third Arbitrator, who

shall act as the Presiding Arbitrator.

11. Be it noted that before the Supreme

Court, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents

on the issue of limitation and stale claim was not

entertained for the reason that during the proceedings

before the High Court, earlier, the panel of Arbitrators

were suggested by the respondents, suggesting that the

respondents were agreeable for arbitration.

12. Thus, all pleas and issues raised on merits

would be left open to be considered and decided by the

Arbitral Tribunal.

13. The Arbitrators shall be entitled to the fee

as per the schedule of the act.

14. Since the dispute arising out of the

agreement is an old one, the hearing be expedited.

15. The issue of limitation, if any, is also left

open to be raised before the Tribunal.

Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.16 of 2021 dt.29-04-2025

16. The Joint Registrar (List) is directed to

communicate this order to the learned Arbitrators, who

shall appoint the third Arbitrator as the Chairman of the

Tribunal.

17. The learned counsel for the parties have

also undertaken to communicate this order to the learned

two Arbitrators.

18. The request petition thus stands disposed

off on the above terms.

19. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also

stand disposed off accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)

Sauravkrsinha/ Krishna-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          01.05.2025
Transmission Date       NA
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter