LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/the-state-of-bihar-ors-vs-m-s-brahmaputra-infrastructure-limited-20180322/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

The State of Bihar & Ors. vs M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Limited

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 March 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 3344 of 2018
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Adarsh Kumar Goel, R.F. Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit
Citation
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 962
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 6 S.C.R. 962
Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 – ss.8, 9 and 22 – Works Contract – Arbitration – State aggrieved by the appointment of arbitrator u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (the Central Act) on the ground that the said Act is excluded by the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act (the State Act) – Held: The scheme of ss.8, 9 and 22 of the State Act shows that in the absence of an agreement stipulating the applicability of the Central Act, the State Act applies to works contracts – Since, in the instant case, an arbitration agreement exists and stipulates applicability of the Central Act, the State Act will not apply – However, it will be open to the appellant-State to move to the High Court for change of Arbitrator, if a case to this effect is made out on an objection of neutrality.

Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 – s.4(3)(b) – Constitutionality of – Held: s.4(3)(b), which provides that the tenure of the Chairman and other members of the Arbitration Tribunal shall be at the pleasure of the Government, is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme, particularly Art.14 of the Constitution – s.4(1) of the Act provides for a three year tenure or till the age of

70 years whichever is earlier – Termination of the said tenure cannot be at pleasure within the term stipulated as the arbitration tribunal has quasi judicial functions to perform – Any termination of the service of such member by a party to the dispute would interfere directly with the impartiality and independence expected from such member – The said provision is, thus, manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the Rule of Law – Accordingly, the said provision declared unconstitutional – Constitution of India – Art.14 – Works Contract.

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 following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The State is aggrieved by the appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Central Act) on the ground that the said Act is excluded by the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (Bihar Act 21 of 2008) (the State Act). 3. To appreciate the plea raised, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the State Act as reflected in some of the key provisions. Sections 8, 9 and 22 of the State Act are as follows
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 →