The Delhi High Court has issued a significant ruling on July 6, affirming that documents sourced from confidential arbitration proceedings cannot ordinarily be utilized in separate arbitration cases. This decision was made in the case of JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Alstom Transport India Limited. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar presided over the matter, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the confidentiality framework established under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Shankar remarked, “The relevance of a document and its permissible use are distinct considerations. A party cannot claim an unrestricted right to rely upon a document solely on the ground that it may support its case, irrespective of the circumstances in which such a document was obtained or the legal obligations governing its disclosure.”
The Court’s decision came as it dismissed a petition by JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited, which had challenged an arbitral award made in November 2023 in favor of Alstom Transport India Limited. The dispute involved the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor project, specifically the segment between Bhaupur and Khurja, where the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) had contracted Alstom for electrification, signaling, telecommunication, and associated works. Alstom, in turn, subcontracted JPC in December 2015 for civil, electrical, and related tasks on 55 structures across Daudkhan, Hathras, and Khurja, valued at ₹34.09 crore.
Conflicts arose regarding project delays, site access, and execution, resulting in partial removal of JPC’s work scope and eventual termination of their subcontract by Alstom. During arbitration, JPC sought to introduce a June 2017 letter penned by Alstom to DFCCIL, which JPC claimed contained admissions pertinent to its argument about site access issues.
The arbitral tribunal, including former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and retired judges DK Jain and JD Kapoor, rejected the letter’s admissibility. They determined that the document originated from a separate arbitration between Alstom and DFCCIL, thus violating the confidentiality rules of arbitration.
More Read
Supporting the tribunal’s stance, the High Court stated that although Section 42A does not explicitly mention “inadmissibility,” interpreting the provision to allow such breaches would undermine its confidentiality objectives. The Court further clarified, “If the interpretation canvassed by the Petitioner were to be accepted, a party would be free to procure documents originating from a separate arbitration and deploy them in collateral proceedings.”
The Court also agreed with the tribunal’s conclusion that legal professionals are bound by the same confidentiality obligations as arbitrators, arbitral institutions, and parties, even though Section 42A explicitly names only the latter groups. It underscored that lawyers, acting as agents of their clients, cannot contravene the confidentiality obligations imposed on their clients.
Moreover, the Court dismissed JPC’s reliance on the International Chamber of Commerce Rules, reiterating that the Arbitration Act’s mandatory provisions prevail since the arbitration seat was in India. The judgment asserted, “A statutory mandate enacted by Parliament cannot be diluted, displaced, or overridden by institutional rules framed by an arbitral institution.”
More Read
The Court declined to interfere with the rejection of JPC’s claims related to geotechnical investigations, topographical surveys, overhead costs, and loss of profit, finding no patent illegality or conflict with India’s public policy in the arbitral award.
JPC was represented by Advocates Manini Brar and Muskaan Chawla, while Advocates Dinesh Pardasani, Aishwary Kumar Tiwari, Siddharth Chechani, and Amrit Singh represented Alstom.
