Latest JudgementArbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025

The court proposed the need to impose time limits for oral submissions in arbitration appeals to prevent judicial overload and delay.

Supreme Court of India·21 April 2025

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

21 April 2025

Judges

Justice Abhay S. Oka ⦁ Justice Pankaj Mithal

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Facts of the Case

The case arose in the context of arbitration proceedings between Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (L&T) and Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., where the dispute had been referred to arbitration and an arbitral award was delivered.
After the award, challenges were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which allows parties to apply for setting aside the arbitral award on limited grounds.
Following the dismissal or decision of the Section 34 application, an appeal under Section 37 was filed, leading to detailed submissions before the appellate forum.

Are arbitration-related proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 being misused by treating them like regular civil appeals under Section 96 CPC?
Do prolonged oral arguments and voluminous references to case law hinder judicial time and the arbitration process?
Should there be time limits imposed on oral submissions in arbitration-related appeals?
What is the impact of such practices on the growth and credibility of arbitration in India?

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of how arbitration-related matters are argued in courts. It was particularly concerned that Section 34 and Section 37 proceedings, which are meant to be limited judicial reviews, are increasingly treated as regular appellate hearings.
The court specifically pointed out the “tendency of senior members of the bar” to delve into minute factual details, even though such details are not usually relevant in the scope of a Section 34 challenge.
It was also noted that multiple judgments are cited on the same point of law, resulting in the court needing to spend unnecessary time and resources just to sift through these submissions.
The Court emphasized that such practices dilute the efficiency of arbitration and lead to lengthy, complicated judgments that are out of proportion to the legal issues involved.
The bench also reminded that courts need to prioritize cases affecting the common man, and cannot afford to let arbitration proceedings consume excessive judicial resources.

The Advocates must exercise restraint in submissions under Sections 34 and 37.
The court proposed the need to impose time limits for oral submissions in arbitration appeals to prevent judicial overload and delay.
Courts are not forums for full reappraisal of facts under these sections — these are limited, non-appellate reviews, typically on grounds such as fraud, bias, or patent illegality.

The judgment reflects a broader concern within the judiciary about the increasing burden placed on courts by counsel who do not respect the intended limited scope of arbitration-related judicial reviews.
Arbitration is supposed to be a speedy and cost-effective alternative to litigation. However, if post-award challenges mimic full-fledged appeals, it defeats the core philosophy of arbitration.
The Court’s criticism suggests the need for a change in litigation culture, particularly among senior advocates who often set the tone in high-stakes commercial disputes.
By floating the idea of imposing time limits, the Court has signaled a willingness to reform procedure to restore arbitration’s efficiency. This could prompt rules of court or even legislative changes in the future.