Click the Play button to listen to article

Former Supreme Court judge-Justice Deepak Verma has approached the Supreme Court against a Rajasthan High Court order which criticized a Arbitral Tribunal headed by him as "lethargic".

For context, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an order on May 27 directing a 5% cut in the arbitral fees already paid, observing a lack of procedural discipline in the arbitration and defeat of the legislative intent of timebound redressal.

Besides Justice Verma, the Tribunal comprised retired High Court judges Dinesh Chandra Somani and N Kumar, who are also petitioners before the Supreme Court. The matter is listed on Monday before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

The case arises from 2009 contracts awarded by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL), and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JdVVNL) to HCL Infosystems under the Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme for power and IT infrastructure works in Rajasthan.

Disputes later emerged over execution delays, deductions, and alleged non-performance under work orders dated 30 September 2009, following which HCL invoked arbitration on 27 September 2019 under Clause 8.2 of the General Conditions of Contract. Arbitral proceedings commenced on 27 July 2020.

After expiry of the statutory timeline on 28 February 2023, HCL sought successive extensions under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Commercial Court granted an extension on 17 September 2024 up to 30 April 2025, and thereafter extended the mandate again on 24 February 2026 up to 30 September 2026.

The DISCOMs challenged the latter extension before the High Court under Article 227, alleging that the tribunal proceeded in a lackadaisical and convenience-driven manner marked by prolonged adjournments, widely spaced hearings, and an unjustified shift of venue from Rajasthan to New Delhi, which significantly increased logistical and financial burden. HCL defended the continuation of the tribunal by citing technical complexity, voluminous documentary record, examination of 22 witnesses, more than 160 sittings, and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The High Court held that while Section 29A permits extension upon showing sufficient cause, it cannot be invoked to accommodate indolence, tactical delay, or procedural laxity. It further observed that Sections 23(4), 24, and 29A of the Act reflect a clear legislative intent to ensure time-bound arbitration, which stood frustrated in the present case.

The Bench criticized the Rs. 7.5 lakh per-session fee structure, noting that the combination of high per-sitting fees and sporadic hearings created structural incentives that undermined expedition and inflated costs. It recorded that arbitral expenditure had escalated to nearly Rs. 13 crore. Finding a systemic failure in procedural discipline, the Court partly upheld the Commercial Court's order dated 17 September 2024 while modifying the order dated 24 February 2026.

It directed the arbitral tribunal to resume day-to-day hearings from 31 May 2026 at the Jaipur Arbitration and Mediation Centre and conclude the proceedings, including the award, within 45 days. The Bench also directed a 5% monthly reduction in arbitral fees already paid for delays attributable to the tribunal and restrained any further financial burden arising from such delays from being passed on to the parties.

Aggrieved by the order, the tribunal members approached the Supreme Court. The petition was filed through AoR Waheb Hussaini.

Case : DEEPAK VERMA AND ORS. Versus JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS., Diary No. 44902-2026

Tags: