• Today: November 02, 2025

ARAVALI POWER COMPANY PVT. LTD. V. M/S. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED

02 November, 2025
401
Aravali Power v Era Infra (2017) – Section 11 & Pre-2015 Arbitrator Appointments | The Law Easy

ARAVALI POWER COMPANY PVT. LTD. V. M/S. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED

2017 SCC OnLine SC 1072

```
Supreme Court of India Arbitration Law Pre-2015 invocation focus 02 Nov 2025 6 min Author: Gulzar Hashmi
Hero image for Aravali Power v Era Infra case explainer
CASE_TITLE: Aravali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 11; pre-amendment; arbitrator appointment; 2015 Amendment SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Northern Railway Administration; NTPC clause; Section 14; panel arbitrators slug: aravali-power-company-pvt-ltd-v-ms-era-infra-engineering-limited LOCATION: India
```

Quick Summary

In Aravali Power v Era Infra, the Supreme Court held that if arbitration was invoked before 23 October 2015, the 2015 Amendment to Section 11 cannot be used to attack an arbitrator already appointed under the contract. For pre-amendment cases, courts must give maximum effect to the contractual mechanism, following Northern Railway Administration.

Issues

  • Can parties challenge a pre-2015 arbitrator appointment by relying on the 2015 Amendments?

Rules

  • Section 11 scheme: Courts must adhere to the contract’s arbitration clause as closely as possible and ensure contractual remedies are first used.
  • The Chief Justice/designate is not bound to appoint the named arbitrator, but must respect contractually required qualifications and relevant considerations.
  • Prospective effect: The 2015 Amendment ended the practice of appointing an officer of one party as arbitrator for future invocations, not retroactively.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Aravali Power v Era Infra
Contract: Township project at Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project, Jhajjar, Haryana. Clause: arbitrator to be the Project Manager or a person nominated by the NTPC Chairman.
29 Jul 2015: Era Infra invoked arbitration; Aravali appointed its Chief Executive as sole arbitrator as per the clause.
2016: Era Infra challenged the appointment; moved Delhi High Court under Section 14 (termination) and also sought appointment under Section 11(6).
High Court: Set aside the appointment; directed a three-member panel from varied departments for Era to choose one.
Supreme Court: Appeal filed; question focused on applicability of 2015 Amendments to a pre-amendment invocation.

Arguments

Appellant (Aravali Power)

  • Invocation was before 23 Oct 2015; amended Section 11 cannot undo a valid appointment.
  • Courts should give effect to the contractual mechanism (NTPC nomination).
  • High Court’s panel direction went beyond the clause.

Respondent (Era Infra)

  • Post-2015 regime discourages party-official arbitrators; independence and neutrality must prevail.
  • Appointment by Aravali’s own officer raises bias concerns.
  • Court should constitute a neutral panel to safeguard fairness.

Judgment

Judgment illustration for Aravali Power v Era Infra

Held: Since arbitration was invoked before 23 Oct 2015, the amended Section 11 could not be used to challenge the appointment already made. While the 2015 Amendment prospectively stops appointing a party’s own officials, pre-amendment cases follow earlier law: courts must adhere to the contract and ensure the Section 11 scheme is respected.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. Temporal line: Applicability of the 2015 Amendment depends on the date of invocation.
  2. Contract first: Under Section 11, courts strive to give effect to the arbitration clause as far as possible.
  3. Northern Railway Administration governs pre-amendment scenarios to maximise fidelity to the agreed procedure.

Why It Matters

The decision gives a clear cut-off for challenges under Section 11: pre-23 Oct 2015 invocations stay under the old regime. It protects party autonomy and predictability in pending, older arbitrations.

Key Takeaways

  • Check the invocation date before applying the 2015 changes.
  • Courts should honour the clause and ensure agreed steps are first exhausted.
  • Post-2015 policy on neutrality is prospective.
  • Precedent: Northern Railway Administration continues for pre-amendment cases.

Mnemonic & 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “DIC”

Date of invocation → Interpret Section 11 as per time → Clause gets maximum effect.

3-Step Hook

  1. Identify if invocation is pre or post 23 Oct 2015.
  2. Apply relevant regime (pre-amendment or amended Section 11).
  3. Give maximum effect to the contractual process.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a pre-2015 appointment open to challenge under the 2015 Amendments to Section 11?

Rule

Section 11 emphasises giving effect to the clause; amended neutrality rules operate prospectively.

Application

Invocation in July 2015; appointment per clause; hence amended Section 11 cannot dislodge it.

Conclusion

Challenge under amended Section 11 fails; contract-based approach prevails.

Glossary

Section 11
Provision on court power to appoint arbitrators; stresses giving effect to the arbitration agreement.
Invocation Date
The date a party first triggers arbitration; key to decide if amendments apply.
Section 14
Termination of arbitrator’s mandate in specified situations (e.g., ineligibility, inability).

FAQs

You cannot use the 2015 Amendments to Section 11 to unsettle an arbitrator if arbitration was invoked before 23 Oct 2015.

Give effect to the arbitration clause as far as possible, ensuring contractual steps are followed first.

It curtailed appointing a party’s own officials as arbitrators, but this applies prospectively to post-amendment invocations.

Northern Railway Administration, stressing maximum adherence to the contractual procedure.
Arbitration Section 11 2015 Amendment
Reviewed by The Law Easy
```
PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 | AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi | LOCATION: India

Comment

Nothing for now