Can arbitral tribunals override institutional rules? Plea filed in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is set to examine whether an arbitral tribunal seated in India can disregard institutional arbitration rules agreed between parties, on the ground of equity and “interest of justice.” [Aneja Constructions v. Doosan Power]

The issue arises from a challenge by a company called Aneja Constructions India against a Delhi High Court order that upheld a tribunal’s decision to condone an 84-day delay by Doosan Power Systems India in filing its statement of defence and counterclaim under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) Rules.

At the heart of the petition is the principle of party autonomy, which the petitioner company argues has been ignored by both the tribunal and the High Court.

Aneja Constructions had entered into a sub-contract agreement with Doosan Power Systems on December 27, 2017, with disputes to be resolved through arbitration under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) Rules.

The controversy arose when Doosan failed to file its Statement of defence within the mandatory 60-day period prescribed under Rule 18(a) of the ICA Rules. The respondent company eventually filed its defence 84 days late, well beyond the permitted time frame.

On July 11, 2025, a three-member arbitral tribunal presided over by Justice (retd) Vikramajit Sen condoned the 84-day delay and allowed the late filing. The tribunal held that it "retains the power to extend the timelines in the interest of justice" despite the clear language of Rule 18(a) stating "not exceeding thirty days."

Significantly, the tribunal acknowledged in its order that words like "not exceeding thirty days" are "peremptorily limiting words" but paradoxically concluded that the ICA Rules "do not use these peremptorily limiting words", a finding that appears to contradict the plain reading of Rule 18(a).

Aneja Constructions challenged the arbitral order before the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the petition on August 6, 2025, ruling that "the Rules are meant to guide and not bind" and that arbitral tribunals have ample power to condone the delay in interest of justice, irrespective of the Rules in question.

In its special leave petition, Aneja Constructions has argued that both the tribunal and the High Court failed to give effect to Section 2(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which deems institutional rules chosen by the parties to form part of the arbitration agreement.

The company submits that by condoning a delay far beyond the 60-day limit, the tribunal “re-wrote the contract” between the parties and undermined the very purpose of institutional arbitration.

The petition stresses that party autonomy is the bedrock of arbitration and that tribunals cannot travel beyond party-agreed procedures. It also cites the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage , where the words “not exceeding” in a statute were interpreted as a hard cap on extensions, to argue that Rule 18(a) must be similarly construed.

According to the petitioner, if the Delhi High Court ruling is not set aside, arbitral tribunals across India could disregard institutional rules on equitable grounds, eroding confidence in institutional arbitration.

The SLP before the Supreme Court has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Garima Bajaj. Aneja is represented by Advocates Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Aditya Maheshwari and Ishaan Pratap Singh from Sim & San.