Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Monday, 21 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-09-18 allowed

Pile Engineering India (P) Ltd. Thr. Its M.D. Manoranjan Kumar Sinha vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd & Ors

Bench: 2 — <UNKNOWN>, <UNKNOWN>

In Brief

Pile Engineering India sued for recovery under an arbitral award of ₹12,09,000 passed in 2004. The High Court initially upheld the award, but on remand from the Supreme Court, it held that Clause 23 of the parties' 1999 contract was not a valid arbitration clause. The Supreme Court reversed this, finding that Clause 23—which provided for disputes to be referred to the Managing Director whose decision would be final and binding—was a valid arbitration clause despite not using the word "arbitration." Following precedent in Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University, the Court upheld the arbitral award and allowed the appeal.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Law Contract Law Dispute Resolution Arbitration Clause Civil Procedure

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login