Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction
Order Date: 05 October 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner – M/S. Hangzhou Qiang Tang Riven Electric Group Co Ltd, a Chinese manufacturer of power and distribution transformers. Respondent No. 1 – Madhucon Projects Limited, an Indian infrastructure and construction company based in Khammam, Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 – an Indian company providing services for setting up thermal power plants (unnamed in the order).
- Agreements: Two Tripartite Agreements dated 13‑02‑2009 and 16‑07‑2010 (the “Subject Agreements”) were executed among the Petitioner (manufacturer), Respondent No. 1 (buyer), and Respondent No. 2 (supplier) for the purchase of transformers, allied equipment, and ancillary services for a coal‑fired thermal power plant of M/s Simhapuri Energy Private Limited. Article 17.2 of the Subject Agreements stipulated that any disputes would be finally settled exclusively by arbitration, with a three‑member tribunal seated in Hyderabad, India.
- Disputed Amount: The Petitioner claims that, despite fulfilling its obligations, the Respondents have failed to pay invoices according to the billing schedule, leaving an outstanding sum of USD 629,874.10.
- Procedural History: The Petitioner issued a legal notice on 08‑05‑2023 demanding payment. Upon non‑compliance, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a notice dated 16‑07‑2023 and appointed Mr. Alladi Ravinder, Senior Advocate, as its nominee arbitrator. The Respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice, prompting the filing of Arbitration Petition No. 65 of 2026 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Court Proceedings: The matter was heard before the Hon’ble Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. Counsel for the Petitioner included Mr. Vikas Mehta (AOR) and Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank. Counsel for the Respondents comprised Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Mrs. B. Geeta, Adv., Ms. Kirti, Adv., among others.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court allowed the petition and appointed Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, former Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the Respondents.
- The Court also appointed Justice Matam Venkata Ramana, former Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the presiding arbitrator of the three‑member arbitral tribunal.
- The seat and venue of the arbitration are confirmed as Hyderabad, India, in accordance with the Subject Agreements.
- The Tribunal is directed to examine, as a preliminary issue, the scope of arbitration, including whether the Petitioner is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause and whether it falls within the definition of “parties” for reference of a dispute to the Arbitrator.
- All rights, claims, counter‑claims, defenses, and objections (including Respondent No. 1’s objections to the existence and scope of the arbitration agreement, the effect of Article 17.4, and limitation) are left open for determination by the Tribunal; the Court’s observations are prima facie and shall not influence the Tribunal’s adjudication.
- The Tribunal is liberty to fix its own fee.
- Any pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Topics: Arbitration, Cross‑border Dispute