MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI versus M/S R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 11-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 525 : 2026 INSC 228
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 
v. 
M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Limited
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3277-78 of 2026)
11 March 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the arbitral award deserves to be set aside on the ground 
of lack of jurisdiction due to improper constitution of the arbitral 
tribunal or patent illegality.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.16, 34, 37, 4 – 
Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal – Interpretation of arbitration 
clause – Waiver – The Appellant-MCGM had floated a tender 
and invited proposals – The stipulated duration for completion 
of the work under the Agreement was 72 months and the 
contract was designed to be implemented in stages – The 
work under the contract was completed – A dispute arose 
in respect of payment of outstanding dues – On 09.08.2005, 
the Respondent invoked the arbitration clause as contained 
in the Agreement – On 07.07.2009, MCGM filed an application 
u/s.16 of the 1996 Act, challenging the appointment of the 
Presiding Arbitrator as a ‘nullity’ and seeking consequential 
reliefs – Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the application holding 
that the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator was valid – 
On 05.06.2010, the Tribunal passed the final award, directing 
MCGM to pay specified amounts – Application seeking setting 
aside of the arbitral award u/s.34 of the 1996 Act was filed 
before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court 
dismissed the application – An appeal was preferred u/s.37 of 
the 1996 Act – High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed 
the judgment and order of the Single Judge – Correctness:
Held: 1. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the Arbitral 
Tribunal has been improperly constituted in derogation of the 
* Author
526
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
arbitration agreement, or that the interpretation of the arbitration 
clause as made by the Arbitral Tribunal has resulted in any patent 
illegality, which would warrant setting aside of the award – As such, 
the High Court has rightly decided not to interfere with the arbitral 
award u/s.34(2)(a)(v) or s.34(2A) while rejecting the application to 
set aside the award. [Para 37]
2. The MCGM raised their objection for the first time, addressing 
the letter dated 20.02.2009 to the Presiding Arbitrator, alleging 
that his appointment is a ‘nullity’ since the Co-Arbitrators had not 
succeeded in appointing the third arbitrator within 30 days and 
therefore had no power to appoint – In the facts of this case, 
beyond 30 days from the date of appointment of the second 
Arbitrator, i.e. 07.10.2005, the MCGM agreed to attempt mediation / 
conciliation by its letter dated 07.01.2006 and then informed the 
Co-Arbitrators about there being no mediation / conciliation by its 
letter dated 15.12.2006 – MCGM passively sat idle while three 
different persons were appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator under 
Clause 8.3(b) of the Agreement by the Co-Arbitrators, without any 
demur. [Paras 54, 63]
3. In the present case, the MCGM was completely aware about the 
non-compliance of a contractual requirement under the arbitration 
agreement – It proceeded with the arbitration process without any 
demur, agreed to keep the arbitration proceedings in abeyance to 
pursue other methods of dispute resolution (mediation / conciliation), 
and did not object to such non-compliance on three different 
occasions when such alleged non-compliance took place – In 
such a case, filing of an application u/s.16 of the 1996 Act cannot 
regularize or condone its conduct and such conduct is a relevant 
consideration to decipher its understanding of the contractual terms 
while deciding the s.16 application on merits by the Tribunal even 
in the absence of statutory waiver u/s.4 being attracted – A party 
cannot keep a ‘jurisdictional ace’ up their sleeve and then claim 
that filing of the jurisdictional challenge u/s.16 would go back in 
time and wipe out the past conduct and acquiescence of the party 
which would clearly evince how the contractual terms were viewed 
by the parties – If the same is permitted, it will erode the basic 
principles of alternative dispute resolution and ethos of arbitration. 
[Paras 66, 67]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.16, 4 – Conduct, 
Acquiescence and waiver – Discussed. [Paras 39-42, 55, 56]
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
527
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v.  
M/s R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.