LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-meenakshi-solar-power-pvt-ltd-vs-m-s-abhyudaya-green-economic-zones-pvt-ltd-and-ors-20221123/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

M/s. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
23 November 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 8818 of 2022
Result
Allowed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna
Citation
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 756 : 2022 INSC 1223
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 8 S.C.R. 756 : 2022 INSC 1223
Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Novation of contract – Effect of – Appellant entered into a share purchase agreement (SPA) with respondent No.1 as also respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (promoters of respondent No.1) to buy the power project of respondent No.1 – Respondent Nos. 2 and

3 agreed to sell 100% ownership of respondent No. 1 and appellant agreed to purchase 100% Equity and Preference Shares of respondent no. 1 by taking over the loans of respondent No. 1 and paying the balance amount to sellers-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Thereafter, a tripartite agreement entered into by the appellant through its affiliate-respondent No. 4 with respondent no. 2 and 3 – Tripartite Agreement recorded execution of SPA and payment made to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in terms of the SPA – An addendum to SPA also signed whereby respondent No. 4 agreed to remit certain amounts to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to regularise the loan and facilitate the transfer of the project company – However, disputes arose between the parties – In terms with the arbitration clause under the SPA, application s.11(6)by the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator – High Court dismissed the application on the ground of novation of contract between the parties – On appeal, held: High Court not right in dismissing the petition u/s. 11(6) by giving a finding on novation of the Share Purchase Agreement between the parties as the said aspect would have a bearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties – Thus, it must be left to the arbitrator to decide on the said issue also – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside – Former judge of the Supreme Court of India appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267 : [2008] 13 SCR 638; SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618; Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 : 2021 (6 ) JT 460; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. NCC Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 896; Union of India vs. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros. (1960) 1 SCR 493, Young Achievers vs. IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. (2013)

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

10 SCC 535 : [2013] 2 SCR 252; M.B.S Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (2020) 5 ALD 185; Damodar Valley Corporation vs. K.K. Kar (1974) 1 SCC 141: [1974] 2 SCR 240 referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAGARATHNA, J. Leave granted. 2. This Civil Appeal has been filed by assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Arbitration Application No. 55 of 2020 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1996’, for the sake of convenience) filed by the appellant herein. 3. The appellant herein- M/s. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →