The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling, dismissing a petition filed by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mandi. The institute sought to be included as a party in ongoing arbitration proceedings between the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and a private contractor. The court firmly held that IIT Mandi presented no legal foundation to be added to the dispute.
Court Upholds Arbitrator's Decision
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel delivered the verdict on Monday, December 30, 2025. The court was reviewing a petition that challenged an April 18 order from the arbitrator. That earlier order had already rejected IIT Mandi's application for impleadment. The arbitration was initiated by Supreme Infrastructure India Limited against the CPWD.
IIT Mandi's primary concern was that the construction work under dispute was related to its academic and residential campus located in Kamand, Mandi. The institute argued that it could face negative consequences from any arbitral award issued against the CPWD. It specifically feared that the CPWD might attempt to enforce an adverse award upon IIT Mandi.
Legal Grounds for Dismissal
The High Court, however, found these apprehensions to be without legal merit. In its ruling, the court stated, “Such apprehension was misplaced, as the contract between the CPWD and the contractor did not envisage enforcement of an arbitral award against IIT Mandi.” The judgment emphasized that mere apprehension is not a sufficient ground for impleadment in arbitral proceedings.
The court also scrutinized a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between IIT Mandi and the CPWD back in August 2011. This agreement outlined that the CPWD would execute construction work for the institute on a deposit basis. The bench clarified that this MoU would only become relevant if a direct dispute arose between IIT Mandi and the CPWD itself and was then referred to arbitration.
Non-Signatory Status Proves Decisive
Upholding the arbitrator's order, the High Court noted there was “no perversity in the decision.” It pointed out that IIT Mandi had failed to satisfy the stringent legal requirements established by the Supreme Court for impleading a non-signatory into arbitration proceedings.
The judgment detailed several key reasons for the dismissal:
- IIT Mandi was not a signatory to the contract between the CPWD and the contractor.
- The institute had neither participated in the negotiations nor played any role in the execution or performance of the said contract.
- The claimant contractor, Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, had not sought any relief against IIT Mandi in its claims.
Finding no merit in the petition, the court dismissed it outright. The ruling carried no order as to costs, and all pending applications in the matter were disposed of accordingly. This decision reinforces the legal principle that involvement in arbitration is strictly governed by the terms of the contract and direct party relationships, not by indirect apprehensions of future liability.
