Jurisdictional finality and minimal interference preclude setting aside arbitral awards on previously settled jurisdictional grounds.

The Appellant (MPRDC) awarded a BOT road project to the Respondent (JCPL) via a Concession Agreement (CA) in 2003

Projects stalled due to land handover delays by the Appellant, leading to the Appellant terminating the CA in 2007

The Respondent challenged the termination as unlawful and initiated arbitration

The Appellant repeatedly challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, arguing the dispute must be heard by the State Tribunal under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983

This jurisdictional issue reached the Supreme Court in 2015/2016, where it was settled in favor of the 1996 Act

A majority arbitral award was eventually passed on 22.08.2014, declaring the termination illegal and awarding "Termination Payments" including debt due and equity

The Appellant’s subsequent challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) were dismissed by the District Court and High Court respectively

The Court applied the principle of minimal judicial interference enshrined in Section 5 of the 1996 Act

Regarding jurisdiction, it applied Section 16(2), which requires jurisdictional objections to be raised no later than the submission of the statement of defense

It relied on Gayatri Project Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corpn. Ltd., which established that if an award predates the clarifying judgment in L.G. Chaudhary II and the Section 16 objection was filed belatedly, the award cannot be annulled solely on jurisdictional grounds

For the merits of the challenge, the court applied the "narrowing pyramid" of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37, holding that an arbitrator is the master of evidence and interpretation, and a plausible view cannot be replaced by the court's view [Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.]

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that the issue had already attained finality inter-se the parties through previous litigation reaching the Supreme Court and was now being raised belatedly in a rejoinder

Under Section 16(2), the Appellant waived the right to object by filing its statement of defense before the jurisdictional plea

On merits, the Court found that "Termination Payment" was indeed claimed by the Respondent and defined broadly under Clause 1.1.111 of the CA to include debt and equity

The Tribunal’s interpretation that such payments were due to the Respondent (even if part was "debt due" to lenders) was held as a "plausible view" that did not warrant interference

Regarding interest, the Court upheld the pre-award rate of 14.75% as a contractual bargain (SBI PLR + 2%) and the 18% post-award rate as the then-prevailing statutory default under Section 31(7)(b)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and District Court

The award was found to be within the scope of reference and based on a reasonable interpretation of the contract

The Court directed the release of the deposited amount to the Respondent within two weeks and ordered the Appellant to pay the remaining balance within three months