The Delhi High Court has ruled that documents obtained during a confidential arbitration cannot ordinarily be introduced as evidence in a separate arbitral proceeding, observing that such a practice would erode the confidentiality safeguards built into India’s arbitration law.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the relevance of a document does not automatically entitle a party to rely upon it. The Court stressed that the manner in which a document is obtained, along with the legal obligations attached to its disclosure, is equally significant.
The ruling came while dismissing a challenge filed by JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited against an arbitral award passed in favour of Alstom Transport India Limited.
The dispute stemmed from a subcontract connected to the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor project between Bhaupur and Khurja. Alstom had secured the principal contract from the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) for electrification, signalling, telecommunication and related works before awarding a back-to-back subcontract worth approximately ₹34.09 crore to JPC in December 2015. The subcontract covered civil, electrical and allied works across 55 structures located at Daudkhan, Hathras and Khurja.
As the project progressed, disagreements surfaced over delays, access to work sites, surveys, drawings, payments and alleged contractual failures. Portions of the subcontract were eventually withdrawn from JPC’s scope, following which Alstom terminated the agreement.
During arbitration, JPC sought to rely on a letter sent by Alstom to DFCCIL in June 2017, arguing that it contained admissions supporting its claim that surveys could not begin without unrestricted access to project locations.
However, the arbitral tribunal declined to accept the document after finding that it had originated from a separate arbitration involving Alstom and DFCCIL and had been obtained in violation of the confidentiality governing those proceedings.
The High Court upheld that decision, observing that although Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly declare such documents inadmissible, interpreting the provision otherwise would strip confidentiality of any real protection.
The Court cautioned that accepting JPC’s argument would effectively permit parties to source documents from unrelated arbitrations and deploy them in collateral proceedings, defeating the very object of the statutory confidentiality framework.
It also endorsed the tribunal’s view that the duty of confidentiality extends beyond the parties themselves to their legal representatives. Even though Section 42A specifically mentions arbitrators, arbitral institutions and parties, the Court held that advocates, acting as agents of their clients, cannot circumvent restrictions that bind the parties they represent.
Rejecting another argument raised by JPC, the Court clarified that institutional rules framed by the International Chamber of Commerce could not override mandatory provisions of Indian law merely because the arbitration was conducted under those rules. Since the arbitration was seated in India, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act remained fully applicable.
Finding no patent illegality or violation of India’s public policy in the arbitral award, the High Court declined to interfere with the tribunal’s rejection of JPC’s claims relating to geotechnical investigations, topographical surveys, overhead expenses and loss of profit.
