SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED vs GKC PROJECTS LIMITED

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
1855 of 2026
In F/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION/9948/2026
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1891 of 2026
In F/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10911 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
GKC PROJECTS LIMITED
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH PRITHVIRAJ GADHVI,
VINEET CHAUBEY & MR ARJUN R SHETH(7589) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 14/07/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. M.B.Gohil, learned advocate for the
applicants and Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.Arjun Sheth, learned advocate for the
opponent.
1.1 The common issue arise in these batch of Civil
Applications and accordingly, they are being heard together
and decided by way of this common judgment.
2. These applications are filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of more than
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
1400 days in filing the Civil Revision Applications under
Section 12 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act, 1992” ).
3. At the outset, Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel,
has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of
the aforesaid revision applications filed under Section 12 of
the Act, 1992. According to Mr.Soparkar, learned Senior
Counsel, the award passed by the arbitrator is not an award
passed by the Tribunal under the Act, 1992 and in that view of
the matter, the revision application filed under Section 12 of
the Act, 1992 itself is not maintainable.
4. Since the maintainability of the revision applications are
challenged in which these delay condonation applications are
filed, I have allowed Mr.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel, to
make his submissions in support of his preliminary objection
about the maintainability.
5. Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel, would submit
that the opponent herein had approached the Tribunal
constituted under the Act, 1992 by way of a statutory
arbitration on 07/04/2015, but due to non-availability of a
member in the Tribunal, the hearing of such arbitration was
suspended for a quite long time and due to such reason, an
application came to be filed by the opponent before Hon’ble
Apex Court being M.A. No.18 of 2019 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.31650 of 2014, whereby it requested the
Honourable Apex Court to appoint a sole arbitrator to
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is further
submitted that the Honourable Apex Court vide its order
dated 08/02/2019 passed in the said application appointed
Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.K. Thakker (Former Judge, Supreme
Court of India) as the Arbitrator who passed the award on
20/01/2022.
5.1 It is submitted that the award in question is required to
be treated as an award passed by the arbitrator as per the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1996” ), which was
subject to challenge under Section 34 before the competent
court of law. It is further submitted that instead of challenging
the award before the competent court of law, the applicant
herein had first preferred a writ petition under Articles 226 /
227 of the Constitution of India being Special Civil Application
No.602 of 2023 before this Court wherein in para 7 itself it
has admitted that since the time prescribed under the Act
1996 to challenge the award under Section 34 has expired,
the said writ petition is filed.
5.2 It is also submitted that on 18/03/2024, this Court in the
said writ petition, has specifically observed that the impugned
arbitral award can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act
1996, and the said order is neither challenged nor reviewed or
recalled by the applicant. It is further submitted that on
24/02/2026, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty
to initiate appropriate proceedings in law, thereby the present
revision applications are being filed under Section 12 of the
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Act 1992, which is not maintainable.
5.3 Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel, would further
submit that once the parties agreed to appoint a sole
arbitrator and the same was appointed by the Honourable
Apex Court, the award passed by a sole arbitrator cannot be
treated as an award passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted
that considering the provisions of Section 3 to 6 of the Act
1992, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the
arbitrator appointed by the Honourable Apex Court was a
Tribunal under the Act, 1992. Since the award passed by the
arbitrator in question is not an award passed under the Act,
1992, its challenge under Section 12 of the Act, 1992 would
not arise and as such, the revision application is not
maintainable.
5.4 Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel, would further
submit that if the revision application itself is not
maintainable as provided under Section 12 of the Act, 1992,
this Court should not entertain these delay condonation
applications.
5.5 To buttress his argument, Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior
Counsel, has placed reliance upon the following judgment:
(i) Nivruti G. Ahire vs. Staet of Maharashtra and
others – 2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 284. (para 15).
6. Per contra, Mr.Gohil, learned advocate for the applicant,
would vehemently oppose the preliminary objection raised by
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Mr.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel, that the revision
application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act
1992 is not maintainable. It is submitted that due to non-
availability of the member in the Tribunal, where the statutory
arbitration was commenced by the opponent, the Honourable
Apex Court has only appointed the arbitrator vide its order
dated 08/02/2019.
6.1 It is submitted that while appointing the arbitrator, the
Honourable Apex Court has categorically observed that the
arbitrator will recommence the proceedings from the stage at
which it reached before the Arbitral Tribunal under the
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Dispute Arbitration Tribunal
Act, 1992. According to Mr.Gohil, learned advocate, the
aforesaid observation made by the Honourable Apex Court
itself suggests that any award passed by a sole arbitrator
would be governed by the Act 1992 and in that view of the
matter, it was subject to challenge by way of a revision
application under Section 12 of the Act, 1992.
6.2 It is further submitted that due to inadvertence, at the
given point of time, instead of filing a revision application
under Section 12 of the Act, 1992, the writ petition under
Articles 226/227 was filed, but having noticed such
inadvertent error on the part of the applicant, it has
withdrawn the said petition with a liberty to file an
appropriate proceeding and thereby, the revision application
is being filed in no time.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
6.3 To buttress his arguments, Mr.Gohil, learned advocate
for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following
judgment :
(i) State of Gujarat Through Chief Secretary and
another vs. Amber Builders – (2020) 2 SCC 540.
7. Since this Court first requires to adjudicate the
preliminary objection raised by the opponent about the
maintainability of the revision application itself, it has not
gone into the merits of the delay application, i.e., whether
sufficient cause is made out by the applicant or not.
8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents
annexed therewith, the following would emerge:
8.1 The opponent invoked statutory arbitration by filing an
arbitration reference before the Works Tribunal constituted
under the Act 1992 on 07/04/2015. It is not in dispute that due
to non-availability of the member, the Tribunal was not
functioning for a quite long time. Since some proceedings
between the parties were pending before the Honourable
Apex Court, i.e., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31650 of
2014, the opponent herein appears to have filed an
application being M.A. No.18 of 2019 in the said petition,
thereby requested the Honourable Apex Court to exercise its
extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India to appoint a sole arbitrator. The aforesaid request of the
opponent appears to have been accepted by the Honourable
Apex Court vide its order dated 08/02/2019 passed in M.A.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
No.18 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31650 of
2014, which reads thus:
"Parties have agreed that a retired judge of this Court,
Shri Justice C.K.Thakker may be appointed as the
Arbitrator which we hereby do.
The learned Arbitrator will recommence the
proceedings from the stage that it had reached before
the Arbitral Tribunal under the Gujarat Public Works
Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. We
also direct that the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner/applicant GKC Projects Limited be
revalidated for a period of one year or till the passing
of the award, whichever is earlier. The bank guarantee
shall remain in force and will not be encashed without
order to that effect by the learned Arbitrator.
M.A. is disposed of in the above terms."
(emphasis supplied)
8.2 The bare reading of the aforesaid order of the
Honourable Apex Court would clearly indicate that the parties
have agreed to the appointment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K.
Thakker (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India) as a sole
arbitrator. The further observation made by the Honourable
Apex Court that the arbitrator will recommence the
proceedings from the stage at which it reached before the
Arbitral Tribunal under the Act 1992 is concerned, such
expression of the Honourable Apex Court is construed by the
applicant to mean that any proceeding before the sole
arbitrator would be governed by the provisions of the Act
1992 and the award passed would be considered/treated as an
award passed under the Act, 1992. This is nothing but a
fallacy on the part of the applicant to completely misread and
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
misconstrued the aforesaid order passed by the Honourable
Apex Court. The aforesaid expression and observation of the
Honourable Court would only indicate that once the sole
arbitrator assumes and recommences the arbitration, he has
to recommence it from the stage where it had reached before
the Arbitral Tribunal and nothing more than that. Once the
parties agreed to appoint a sole arbitrator, according to my
considered view, any award passed by such arbitrator would
be governed by only the provisions of the Act, 1996 and not by
the Act, 1992 as contended by Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for
the applicant.
8.3 Apart from the aforesaid, the applicant, before filing the
revision application under Section 12 of the Act 1992, had
approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India being Special Civil
Application No.602 of 2023, wherein in para 7 it has
categorically stated on oath that time prescribed under the
Act, 1996, to file the application under Section 34 of the said
Act has expired, thus it has invoked the writ jurisdiction of
this Court. For ready perusal, I would like to reproduce the
averments made in para 7 of the said writ petition which read
thus:
“7. The petitioners submit that time prescribed under
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to file an
application under Section 34 of the Act has expired,
however, since the Impugned award is against the
very public policy as being against the very principles
of Contract law, the same deserves to be quashed and
set aside and hence, the Petitioner, being remediless
are invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court under Article 226 and 227 of the
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Constitution of India. It is submitted that at present,
the Petitioners have no other alternative efficacious
remedy available under law, except to approach this
Hon'ble Court seeking the reliefs as prayed for in the
petition.”
8.4 The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated
18/03/2024 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, being
Special Civil Application No.602 of 2023 has also expressed
the opinion, which reads thus:
"When the matter is called out, the learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner is not present.
This Court has perused the impugned arbitral award
dated 20.1.2022 passed in Arbitration petition No. 6 of
2017. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned
artibtral award, as referred above, can be challenged
by way of application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside
the said award.
Stand over to 1.4.2024."
9. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
taking into account the aforesaid orders passed by the
Honourable Apex Court and this Court, as well as the
averments made by the applicant itself in the said writ
petition, it would lead to only one conclusion that the award
passed by the sole arbitrator appointed by the parties is
governed by the provisions of the Act, 1996 and not by the
Act, 1992.
10. Mr.Gohil has placed reliance upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amber Builders (supra) ,
but the same would not be applicable to the facts of this case
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026

C/CA/1855/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
for the simple reason that the award in question was not
passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992, but
it is an award passed by a sole arbitrator appointed by the
parties ad idem who was appointed pursuance to the order of
the Honourable Apex Court as aforesaid.
11. Since this Court is of the opinion that the award in
question passed by the arbitrator is required to be challenged
under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and undisputedly the time
has already expired to challenge it, indirectly the applicant
cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing
a revision application under Section 12 of the Act 1992, which
otherwise to be assumed by this Court when any award
passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992,
which is undisputably not the case here. The things cannot be
done directly, it cannot be done indirectly.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I am of
the considered view that the revision applications filed by the
applicant under Section 12 of the Act, 1992, are not
maintainable. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by
the opponent, is hereby accepted. Consequently, the present
delay condonation applications filed in the respective revision
applications are also not maintainable and accordingly, they
are rejected. Notice is discharge, in each application. Registry
shall refuse the registration of the civil revision applications.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:13 IST 2026