Case Name: Maharashtra Maritime Board vs Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd. & Anr.
Petition: Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 18084‑18085/2026.
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Partial Court Working Days Bench.
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.
Order Date: Hearing on 02‑06‑2026; order digitally signed on 04‑06‑2026.
Originating Judgment: Impugned final judgment and order dated 27‑04‑2026 in CAP No. 1070/2025 and CAA No. 675/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Period of Dispute: Not specified in the order.
Parties Involved
Petitioner: Maharashtra Maritime Board.
Respondents: Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd. and another party (Anr.).
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Mr. Ishwar Nankarni, Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Adusumalli, Mr. Jay Sanklecha, Mr. Kartik Gupta, Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Mr. Pranav Giri, Mr. Pramothesh Mukherjee, Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Ms. Shilpa Singh (AOR).
Counsel for Respondent(s): Mrs. Amrita Narayan, Mr. Faranaaz Karbhari, Mr. Rahul Jain, Mr. Raghav Tiwari, Mr. Madhav Sharma.
Issues / Allegations / Violations
Petitioners contended, relying on clauses 24 and 25 of the underlying agreement, that no arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
The core issue is whether the parties are bound by an arbitration clause, thereby invoking the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The matter also involves the applicability of Section 16 of the Act, which allows an arbitral tribunal to determine its own jurisdiction.
The petition references observations made by the Bombay High Court in its disposal of a Section 11 application, seeking clarification on whether those observations should influence the arbitral tribunal.
Findings & Observations
The Supreme Court opined that the question of the existence of an arbitration agreement can be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court permitted the petitioner to raise all questions of law and fact, including those relating to the existence of an arbitration agreement, before the arbitral tribunal.
The tribunal is directed to consider the questions on its own merits and must not be influenced by any observations made by the High Court in the earlier Section 11 application.
Penalties / Settlements / Directions
No monetary penalties, settlements, or fines were imposed on either party.
Corrective Actions & Future Obligations
The petitioner is authorized to present all legal and factual issues, including the arbitration agreement dispute, to the arbitral tribunal.
The arbitral tribunal must determine jurisdiction independently, without reliance on the High Court’s prior observations.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
The Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18084‑18085/2026 are disposed of.
Any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The matter is now referred back to the Arbitral Tribunal for determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and related substantive issues.
