Inter-party findings on jurisdiction operate as constructive res judicata, barring subsequent challenges in fresh arbitration proceedings.

The applicant (MSP) and the respondent (MPRDCL) entered into a concession agreement on April 4, 2002, for road works.

MPRDCL terminated the agreement in 2003, leading to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which resulted in an award in favor of MSP in 2006.

MPRDCL challenged the award under Section 34, and despite raising jurisdictional objections regarding the applicability of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the High Court and Supreme Court previously held that the 1996 Act governed the dispute between these specific parties.

Eventually, the Commercial Court set aside the 2006 award on November 24, 2022, granting liberty to initiate arbitration afresh “in accordance with law”.

MSP requested the Indian Council of Arbitration to constitute a tribunal, but MPRDCL objected to the jurisdiction again, asserting the dispute must go before the State Arbitral Tribunal under the 1983 Act.

MSP subsequently filed this application under Section 11(6) for the appointment of an arbitrator.

1. Whether the respondent is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel from challenging the maintainability of arbitration under the 1996 Act given the findings in earlier rounds of litigation between the same parties.

2. Whether the Court, at the Section 11 referral stage, should conduct an intricate inquiry into jurisdictional or statutory bars when the existence of an arbitration agreement is not in dispute.

Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which confines judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

Doctrine of res judicata and the principle that a judgment inter-parties is binding even if the underlying legal precedent is later diluted.

Precedent established in MSP Infrastructures Ltd v. MP Road Development Corp. (2015).

L.G. Chaudhary Engineers (2018) regarding the 1983 Adhiniyam.

Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids (P) Ltd. (2025) regarding the limited scope of Section 11.

The court reasoned that while the 1983 Act generally ousts the 1996 Act for "work contracts" in Madhya Pradesh, the specific issue of maintainability between these parties had already been adjudicated in a previous appellate round (A.A. No. 8/2017), which reached finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

Consequently, the respondent is precluded by constructive res judicata and estoppel from reagitating the jurisdictional bar.

Following the 2015 Amendment and the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle, the court held that at the Section 11 stage, it must not conduct an "intricate evidentiary enquiry".

Since the existence of the arbitration agreement was not in dispute, any lingering objections regarding the statutory bar under the 1983 Act are jurisdictional issues to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16.

The Court appointed Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, Former Judge of the High Court of M.P., as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

The Court directed the parties to deposit fees as per the M.P. Arbitration Centre Rules, 2019, and clarified that the respondent remains free to agitate jurisdictional questions before the Arbitrator.