Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court refers arbitration pre-deposit case to larger bench
The case concerns a dispute over whether a contractual clause requiring a contractor to deposit 10% of the claim amount as security before invoking arbitration is valid and enforceable.
The Supreme Court is examining the constitutionality of this pre-deposit requirement in light of conflicting precedents.
Who it concerns: Appellant: M/s Santosh Associate Private Limited; Respondent: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.; Judge: Justice Manmohan.
What the court decided
- The Court granted leave to appeal.
- The Court referred the matter to a larger bench.
- The Court expressed doubt regarding the 2009 precedent (S.K. Jain vs. State of Haryana) relied upon by the lower courts.
Also in the document
- The Commercial Court and Sole Arbitrator had previously dismissed the Appellant's claim for non-compliance with the 10% pre-deposit clause.
- The Appellant argued the clause violates Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, citing recent Supreme Court decisions (ICOMM Tele Ltd., Lombardi Engineering Ltd., CORE) that struck down similar clauses.
- The Respondent argued that the 2009 precedent remains binding and that the clauses in the cited cases were materially different.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · 17 Aug 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.