Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Indra Sistemas S.A vs Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 23 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.73/2025
INDRA SISTEMAS S.A ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. ...RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
2. By way of the instant petition under Section 11(6)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”),
the Petitioner seeks appointment of the Respondent’s
Nominee Arbitrator as well as the third/presiding
Arbitrator. Such appointment is sought under Clause 17.9
of the General Conditions of Contract (“GCC”), as
amended by Clause 49B of the Special Conditions of
Contract (“SCC”), which form part of the Contract
Agreement dated 10.09.2014 (“Contract”) entered into
between the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.02.25
16:49:23 IST
Reason: 3. To broadly set out the sequence of events, the
Petitioner is a company registered under the laws of
1
Spain and engaged in the business of metro rail traffic
management and fare collection systems, while the
Respondent is a Government of India enterprise
implementing the Kolkata (East-West Metro) Corridor
Project (“Project”).
4. Under the Contract, the Petitioner was entrusted
with the design, manufacture, supply, installation,
testing and commissioning of the Automatic Fare
Collection (AFC) System for the Project. The works under
the Contract were structured in two phases, namely Phase
I and Phase II, the latter encompassing the Backup
Control Centre (“BCC”). The Contract incorporates the
GCC and SCC, which contain the arbitration agreement
under Clause 17.9 of the GCC as modified by Clause 49B
of the SCC. The relevant part of the modified Arbitration
agreement reads as follows:
“49B Sub-Clause 17.9 — Arbitration
Paragraphs (a), (b) & (c) are replaced by the
following paragraphs:
a) The Arbitration Board will consist of three
Arbitrators. The Contractor and the Employer
shall appoint their own Arbitrator and the two
appointed Arbitrators shall appoint the third
Arbitrator in accordance with Section 11 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of India.
All Arbitrators shall be Indian nationals
ordinarily residing in India with technical
competence and experience. The Arbitrator(s)
shall be appointed within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of written
notice/demand of appointment of Arbitrator from
either party. Neither party shall be limited in
the proceedings before such arbitrator(s) to the
2
evidence or arguments put before the Engineer
for the purpose of obtaining his decision. No
decision given by the Engineer in accordance
with the foregoing provisions shall disqualify
him from being called as a witness.
The parties shall be entitled to produce
evidence and giving evidence before the
arbitrator(s) on any matter whatsoever relevant
to dispute or difference referred to
arbitrator(s). The arbitration proceedings shall
be held in Kolkata only. The language of
proceedings, that of documents and communication
shall be English.
Para b) Not used.
Para c) The award of the majority of the three
arbitrators shall be binding on all parties.”
5. The Contract was subsequently amended by a
supplementary agreement dated 13.02.2019 in respect of
certain software deliverables forming part of the AFC
System works.
6. It appears that the dispute between the parties
initially arose from delay-related costs and damages
incurred by the Petitioner, prompting it to issue a
notice of dispute dated 03.08.2023. Being dissatisfied
with the Respondent’s reply, the Petitioner invoked
conciliation under Clause 17.6 of the GCC on 29.09.2023,
which the Respondent accepted on 26.10.2023. However,
conciliation proceedings did not commence despite the
lapse of more than 1.5 years.
7. In the meantime, a further dispute arose in
relation to the BCC, pursuant to which the Respondent
took the position that the Petitioner had failed to
3
supply the BCC in accordance with the Contract and
proceeded to procure the same from third parties, while
effecting recoveries of the alleged differential cost
from the payments due to the Petitioner
8. Apprehending the invocation of bank guarantees by
the Respondent in terms of the Contract, the Petitioner
approached the High Court of Calcutta by filing petition
bearing AP-COM No. 621 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Act
seeking certain interim relief(s). During the pendency of
the aforesaid proceedings before the High Court, the
Petitioner terminated the aforementioned conciliation
proceedings vide letter dated 06.08.2025. Ultimately, the
High Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 declined to grant
interim relief but directed the Petitioner to proceed
with the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
9. The Petitioner, consequently, issued a Notice
Invoking Arbitration dated 19.08.2025 and nominated
Justice Sanjib Banerjee, former Chief Justice of the
Meghalaya High Court, as its arbitrator. The Respondent,
however, did not appoint its Nominee arbitrator within
the stipulated 30-day period. Instead, vide letter dated
16.09.2025, the Respondent raised an objection to the
eligibility of the Petitioner’s nominee under Clause 49B
of the SCC and requested the Petitioner to select an
arbitrator from a panel of five arbitrators suggested by
4
it. The Petitioner responded to the said communication by
its letter dated 18.09.2025, disputing the objection
raised by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent did
not proceed to appoint its Nominee Arbitrator, which has
led to the instant petition being instituted.
10. Learned counsel for the parties have fairly
acknowledged that the arbitration agreement provides for
the seat of arbitration to be in Kolkata and that it
would be procedurally governed by the Act. During the
course of the hearing, learned counsel for the Respondent
also stated that they have no objection to the arbitrator
nominated by the Petitioner and, to that effect, have
placed on record a letter dated 26.11.2025, thereby
approving the appointment of Justice Sanjib Banerjee as
the Nominee Arbitrator of the Petitioner.
11. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the
Respondent proposed Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya,
former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, as the
Respondent’s nominee, to which the Petitioner raised no
objection.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the provisions of the Contract governing the
appointment of arbitrators, Justice Jyotirmay
Bhattacharya is appointed as the Nominee Arbitrator on
5
behalf of the Respondent. The third/presiding arbitrator
shall be nominated by the two learned arbitrators, in
accordance with the agreed procedure, expeditiously, and
preferably within three weeks.
13. In accordance with the agreement entered into by
the parties, the proceedings shall be held in Kolkata,
West Bengal, India. The Arbitrators shall have the
liberty to fix their own remuneration/fees. Initially,
the parties shall pay the cost of arbitration equally.
14. Ordered accordingly.
15. The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in the
above terms. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
………………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
6
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s).73/2025
INDRA SISTEMAS S.A Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD Respondent(s)
IA No. 328201/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 23-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Prashant Pakkhidey, Adv.
Mr. Manav Gill, Adv.
Ms. Saksha Jha, Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR
Mr. Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Chouhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Partha Sil, AOR
Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Srijit Datta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in terms of the signed
order.
2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
7
