Bombay HC Extends Chenab Bridge Arbitration Tribunal Mandate Till June 2026 Amid Konkan Railway Dispute

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicating disputes between the Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking and Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KRCL) till June 30, 2026. The tribunal is hearing claims related to the design and construction of a special rail bridge over the Chenab River, part of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link project.

A batch of petitions was filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking an extension of the tribunal’s mandate, which had expired on March 1, 2024. The tribunal—currently presided over by Aditya Kumar Mittal—is seized of disputes concerning 24 half-yearly claims arising out of a 2004 contract for the iconic Chenab Bridge.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan rejected Konkan Railway’s opposition to the extension and its request to replace the existing arbitrators with a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge. The railway corporation had alleged procedural lapses and delays in the tribunal’s conduct.

The court noted that the tribunal’s handling of the complex claims was in line with the parties’ arbitration agreement and that delays were attributable to both sides. It held that replacing the arbitrators midway would disrupt proceedings and undermine the stability intended by the parties when they constituted the Standing Arbitral Tribunal (SAT).

It further observed that procedural grievances could be challenged after the award is passed and did not warrant intervention at this stage.

Justice Sundaresan also noted that the tribunal was constituted from a panel curated by KRCL itself, and found it ironic that the railway PSU was now questioning its composition. He further observed that both parties had previously consented to mandate extensions, and that it would be counterproductive and disruptive to halt proceedings midway.

While extending the tribunal’s mandate, the court remarked: “Konkan Railway is unhappy with the tribunal constituted by it from among railway officials, only because it disagrees with the appropriateness and wisdom of its decisions.”