Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Paradip Port Trust (Ppt) vs M/S Modi Projects Limited Etc on 27 July, 2026
1
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.32919-32920/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2025
in ARBA No. 8/2023 and WP(C) No. 7019/2024 passed by the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack]
PARADIP PORT TRUST (PPT) Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S MODI PROJECTS LIMITED ETC. Respondent(s)
[FOR FINAL DISPOSAL].........FOR ADMISSION
Date : 27-07-2026 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR
Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv.
Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv.
Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Disha Thakkar, Adv.
Ms. Smita Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Mr. D.S. Parmer, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker-AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
1. These petitions arise from the common Judgment and Order
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.07.29
19:25:34 IST
Reason:
dated 26th August, 2025 passed by the High Court of Orissa in
Arbitration Application No.8 of 2023 along with Writ Petition
(Civil) No.7019 of 2024, by which the arbitration application
2
preferred by the petitioner before us – Paradip Port Trust,
under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
came to be dismissed, whereas the Writ Petition preferred by
the Respondent before us came to be allowed, by which the High
Court observed that it would be open for the respondent to
avail the benefit of the scheme called `Vivaad se Vishwaas
II”.
2. Being dissatisfied with the common Judgment and Order
passed by the High Court, the petitioner – trust is before us
with the present petitions.
3. We heard Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India
and Mr. Navin Pahwa, the learned Senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.1.
4. Our two orders dated 28th January, 2026 and 19th March,
2026 respectively speaks for themselves.
5. The two Orders read thus:
28-1-2026:-
1. We heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General for
India assisted by Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner – Paradip Port Trust (PPT) and Mr.
Mukul Rohatgi & Mr. Navin Pahwa, the learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondentM/s Modi Projects Limited.
2. These petitions arise from the common judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, dated 26.08.2025
in Arbitration Appeal No. 8 of 2023 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.
7019 of 2024 respectively, by which the Arbitration Appeal
preferred by the petitioner-Port Trust under Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996 (for short the 1996 Act) came to be
dismissed, thereby affirming the order passed by the Commercial
Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, and the Arbitral Award
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Writ Petition preferred by
the respondent herein came to be disposed of with appropriate
directions to the authority concerned.
3. We take notice of the fact that in the wake of dispute between
the parties, the matter was referred for arbitration. The
3Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in favour of the respondent. In
accordance with the Arbitral Award, the petitioner- Port Trust
has to pay an amount of Rs.13,66,01,820/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore
Sixty Six Lakh One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty) with interest
to the respondent no.1-claimant. The petitioner being
dissatisfied with the Arbitral Award challenged the same before
the Commercial Court by filing a petition under Section 34 of the
1996 Act, which came to be dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the
order passed by the Commercial Court, the petitioner went in
appeal before the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
The appeal also came to be dismissed.
4. We shall now give a fair idea about the connected Writ
Petition, which the High Court dealt with while hearing the
appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. The Writ Petition
filed by the respondent no.1 herein had something to do with the
Scheme by the name ‘Vivaad Se Vishwas II’ (contractual disputes
Scheme). This Scheme is of the year 2023. The High Court while
disposing of the Writ Petition observed that under the Scheme,
the respondent no.1 herein, i.e., the original claimant, has a
right to put forward its proposal of accepting a lesser amount
than what has been actually awarded by the Arbital Tribunal. The
High Court observed that since the claimant has applied under the
Scheme, it would be for the authority concerned to look into the
proposal and take an appropriate decision in that regard. Insofar
as the two orders passed by the Courts below are concerned, i.e.,
the order passed by the Commercial Court and the one passed by
the High Court, the principal contention canvassed on behalf of
the petitioner is that both the orders are non-speaking orders.
None of the contentions raised before the Courts below were dealt
with in any manner. So far as the contention with regard to the
Scheme is concerned, according to the learned Solicitor General,
since the matter was pending before the High Court, the authority
was unable to take any final call in the matter. Learned
Solicitor General has many things to say about the Scheme, more
particularly, the effect in terms of revenue, etc. We are not
getting into any other debate insofar as the Scheme is concerned.
The fact remains that the Scheme is in force today. Way back in
the year 2023, the respondent no.1-claimant had applied. The
authority concerned has yet to take a final decision in this
regard.
5. Today all that we are directing is that the authority
concerned shall take a final decision insofar as the proposal of
the respondent no.1-claimant under the Scheme is concerned. Let
an appropriate decision be taken in accordance with law keeping
in mind the parameters of the Scheme, more particularly the
object behind the same and the decision that may be taken shall
be placed before us by the next date of hearing. If the authority
concerned is of the view that the claimant is entitled to seek
appropriate relief under the Scheme, then we may not have to
adjudicate this matter any further. It is only in the event that
for some good reason, the proposal of the respondent no.1-
claimant is not accepted, then we shall hear the matter on its
own merits. While considering the proposal, if the authority
deems fit, it may hear the petitioner herein – Paradip Port
Trust.
6. Let the decision be taken within a period of four weeks and
be placed before us.
4
7. List on 19.03.2026.”
Order dated 19-03-2026:-
1. We heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General
appearing for the petitioner Trust and Mr. Navin Pahwa, the
learned senior counsel, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Nikhil
Rohatgi, appearing for the respondent no.1.
2. Para 5 of our order dated 28.01.2026 reads thus:-
“5. Today, all that we are directing is that the authority
concerned shall take a final decision insofar as the
proposal of the respondent no.1-claimant under the Scheme is
concerned. Let an appropriate decision be taken in
accordance with law keeping in mind the parameters of the
Scheme, more particularly the object behind the same and the
decision that may be taken shall be placed before us by the
next date of hearing. If the authority concerned is of the
view that the claimant is entitled to seek appropriate
relief under the Scheme, then we may not have to adjudicate
this matter any further. It is only in the event that for
some good reason, the proposal of the respondent no.1-
claimant is not accepted, then we shall hear the matter on
its own merits. While considering the proposal, if the
authority deems fit, it may hear the petitioner herein –
Paradip Port Trust.”
3. By our order dated 28.01.2026, we had made ourselves very
clear that the Government of India in its Ministry of Ports,
Shipping & Waterways should clarify in clear terms whether the
respondent no.1 is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme or
not. It appears that the matter was looked into by the Government
of India in its concerned Department and a letter came to be
addressed to the petitioner Trust dated 09.03.2026 which reads
thus:-
“No. PD-26026/1/2023-PD-1
Government of India
Ministry of Ports, Shipping & Waterways
(Ports Wing)Transport Bhawan,
1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 100001
Dated the 09th March, 2026
To
The Chairperson,
Paradip Port Authority,
Odisha – 754142Subject: Reference received from Suman Khaitan & Co.
regarding the Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 32919/2025 filed by Paradip
Port Trust (PPT) Vs. Modi Project Private Limited – regd.
Sir,
5I am directed to enclose herewith the reference dated
12.02.2026 received from Suman Khaitan & Co. alog with the
Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and OM dated 19.08.2024 of Department of Expenditure on the
subject cited above with a request to take necessary action
in the matter in accordance with Vivas se Vishwas-II Scheme
and settle the dispute accordingly.
Encl: As above
Yours faithfully,
(Naveen Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tel:011-23719207
Email: [email protected]”
4. We also take notice of the letter dated 13.03.2026
addressed by the Ministry to the petitioner Trust which reads
thus:-
“No. PD-26026/1/2023-PD-1
Government of India
Ministry of Ports, Shipping & Waterways
(Ports Wing)Transport Bhawan,
1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 100001
Dated the 13th March, 2026
To
The Chairperson,
Paradip Port Authority,
Odisha – 754142Subject: Reference received from Suman Khaitan & Co.
regarding the Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 32919/2025 filed by Paradip
Port Trust (PPT) Vs. Modi Project Private Limited – regd.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s letter of
even number dated 09.03.2026 forwarding therewith the
reference dated 12.02.2026 received from Suman Khaitan &
Co. along with Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and OM dated 19.08.2024 of Department of
Expenditure on the subject cited above with a request to
furnish the updated status in the matter to the Ministry.
Encl: As above
Yours faithfully,(Naveen Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tel:011-23719207
Email: [email protected]”
5. Mr. Pahwa would submit that the Government vide its letter
dated 09.03.2026 referred to above could be said to have made
6
itself very clear that the respondent no.1 is entitled to avail
the benefit of the scheme and the petitioner Trust has been
accordingly directed to settle the dispute.
6. On the other hand, the learned Solicitor General would
submit that the letter of the concerned Ministry dated 09.03.2026
is not clear. According to him, there is no reference of the
letter addressed by the Trust dated 19.02.2026 to the concerned
Ministry. The letter dated 19.02.2026, purported to have been
addressed to the Government of India reads thus:-
“xxx
1. The present letter is being addressed in compliance with the
Directions passed by the Hon’ble Court in SLP No. 32919-
32920/2025 on 28.01.2026. A copy of the order is enclosed
herewith.
2. This is one of the rare and shocking cases wherein a
manifestly perverse award is not examined either by the First
Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 or by the Appellate court under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Both the judgements are
completely without any reasons. A strict reliance upon the Vivaad
se Vishwaas II (Contractual Disputes) scheme would result into
loss of crores of rupees to the public exchequer without
examination of the court under the statutory process.
3. The background for addressing the letter is the following-
(a) The aforesaid directions have been passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 32919-32920/2025
pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as “Paradip
Port Trust (PPT) vs. M/s Modi Projects Limited”, wherein the
challenge is to a common order dated 26.08.2025 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in ARBA No. 8/2023
preferred by PPT under S.37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble
High Court.
(i) The Ld. Tribunal has allowed claim 5 (loss of
overheads) to tune of Rs.2,20,23,800/- without any evidence
in support thereof by applying the Hudson formula. The said
finding is erroneous as Respondent had produced no shred of
evidence to show that it had in fact incurred any loss at
all. Further, the application of the Hudson formula in
insolation is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Batliboi Environment Engineers Ltd. v.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 375;
(ii) The Learned Tribunal has erroneously awarded Claim No.
6 – Loss of Profit of Rs.6,31,94,400/- without assigning any
reasoning or referring to supporting evidence. The award is
based solely on an arbitrary assumption of 10% of the
unexecuted work value. The Respondent-Claimant produced no
proof of actual loss or inability to undertake other
contracts. The said finding is also contrary to the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Unibros v. All India
Radio, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366, wherein it was held that
loss of profit must be proved by cogent evidence;
(iii) The Ld. Tribunal has failed to appreciate material
evidence on record, which the Respondent’s own letter dated
7
29.03.2016 expressly admitting that no work could be
executed during the seven-month monsoon period from June
2015 to December 2015;
(iv) The Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate relevant clauses
of the contract such as Clause 10, Special Conditions of
Contract, which states that work had to be done during
monsoon season also and that the Respondent – Contractor had
to maintain sufficient labour force on ground. In spite of
such a clause being there and also a letter of Respondent
wherein he himself admits of not executing any work in
monsoon, the Ld. Tribunal has still held that delay was
solely attributable to the Petitioner.
6. It is pertinent to state that in the present case, the
challenge to the award dated 12.04.2017 under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act and also the appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration Act has been dismissed without any reasoning in
support thereof. The same is also observed in the order dated
05.12.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while issuing notice in
the matter.
7. Even otherwise, it is imperative to mention that the Vivaad se
Vishwaas Scheme itself contains a clause with respect to
willingness and consent of the parties which is produced below:
“10. Each of the persons signing this settlement agreement
is fully authorized to do so, has fully understood the
contents of the same and is signing on the same out of
complete free will and consent, without any pressure and
undue influence.”
8. In view of the aforesaid it is requested that in these
extraordinary circumstances, PPT may not be mandated to enter
into a settlement as per Vivaad se Vishwaas II (Contractual
Disputes).
9. It is humbly prayed that the Ministry may kindly clarify the
issue so that the decision can be placed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as directed by the Hon’ble Court.
10. The matter may be treated as Most Urgent.
This issues with the approval of Chairman, PPA”
7. We would like to know from the concerned Ministry whether
the respondent no.1 is entitled to avail the benefit of the
scheme or not.
8. The Trust may have its own objections. It is for the
concerned Ministry to look into. We would like the concerned
Ministry to make its stance explicitly clear. We want a
particular stance to be now made clear by way of an affidavit to
be filed by a responsible Officer.
9. Let such affidavit be filed within a period of one week
from today. One copy of the affidavit may be furnished to all
other learned counsel appearing in this particular matter.
8
10. Post this matter for further hearing on 07.05.2026.
11. We permit the petitioner to implead the Government of
India in its Ministry of Ports Shipping and Waterways as party
respondent no.3.
12. Let the cause title be amended accordingly.
13. Let notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondent
no.3, returnable on 07.05.2026.”
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Union of India
has filed an affidavit dated 6-5-2026 duly affirmed by Shri
Navin Kumar, Under Secretary at Ministry of Ports, Shipping
and Waterways, stating as under:
“10. That in view of the above, the following is humbly
submitted by Respondent No.3:-
“i the Scheme applies to the present case and requires due
consideration of the claim in accordance with its parameters; andii. the final determination must be undertaken by the procuring
entity (i.e., the petitioner) in accordance with the Scheme.
7. Although the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has manifold contentions to raise as regards
the legality and validity of the two orders passed by the
courts below, one under Section 34 and the other under
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, we are of the view
that, in view of the specific stance of the Union of
India as regards the entitlement of the Respondent No.1
to avail the benefit of the scheme, it would not be
necessary for us to go into the merits of the matter. All
that the Respondent No.1 wants is to seek the benefit of
the Scheme by an appropriate direction to the petitioner
to disburse the requisite amount in their favour that may
be determined by petitioner.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we dispose of these
petitions, saying that the Respondent No.1 shall be extended
the benefit of the Scheme and whatever amount is to be paid to
the Respondent No.1 in accordance with the scheme shall be
9
determined by the petitioner – Trust and be paid accordingly
within a period of two months from today.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
