Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. Tecpro Systems Ltd.; 2025 INSC 1447 - S.11 Arbitration Act - Consortium Member
You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 11- The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and no further. The referral court is required to undertake only a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims- The question whether a member of a consortium can itself invoke Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is not one that admits of a monolithic or a uniform answer. Answer to that question will necessarily depend on enquiry into the terms of the principal contract, as well as the Consortium Agreement. The specific terms of the Consortium Agreement, parties to that agreement, and the nature of the rights and mutual obligations that the agreement creates will have to be examined in detail. Reference court will, however, confine its enquiry only to a prima facie satisfaction as to whether a member of a consortium qualifies as a “party” to the arbitration agreement. This prima facie satisfaction is sufficient for the referral court to constitute and refer the dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal (AT). Thereafter, it is for the AT to undertake the detailed enquiry as to whether a member of the consortium is in fact a veritable party to the arbitration agreement or not. Beyond the prima facie enquiry, it should be the discipline of the referral court to refrain from undertaking a detailed enquiry on basis of evidence to arrive at a finding of fact in the nature of a ‘proof’. (Para 15-17)
Case Info
Case Details
- Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.; Atul S. Chandurkar, J.
- Judgment date: December 17, 2025.
Caselaws and Citations
- Duro Felguera SA v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729.
- Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In Re, (2024) 6 SCC 1.
- SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 12 SCC 1.
- Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 192.
- Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1.
- ASF Buildtech P. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. P. Ltd., (2025) 9 SCC 76.
- M.R. Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 696.
- Inox Wind Ltd. v. Thermocables Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 519.
- NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 323.
- Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corp. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1604; 2025 INSC 933.
- Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. v. NHAI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3253.
- MSEDCL v. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3920.
- New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478.
- Dulichand Laxminarayan v. CIT, (1956) 1 SCC 269.
- Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 449.
- Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 234.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 7, 8, 11(6), 11(6A), 16.
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in context of “In Re” decision).
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (CIRP/liquidation referenced).
- General Conditions of Contract (GCC) Clause 22.2 (arbitration clause).
- Invitation to Bid/Instructions to Bidders definitions (Contractor, Parties) within tender documents.
