Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Arbitration Appeal After State Filed Challenge As 'Government' Instead Of 'State'

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging a Rs 199.96-crore arbitral award arising out of the Pulichintala Dam project dispute after the state failed to correct the description of the party from “Government of Andhra Pradesh” to “State of Andhra Pradesh” despite being given an opportunity to do so.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, in a judgment dated March 6, 2026, held that under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, a State government must sue or be sued in the name of the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.

Since the defect remained uncorrected even after the court pointed it out during the hearing, the bench held that the appeal itself was not maintainable.

The Court observed:

“This Article, in the light of the above judgments, would have to be understood to mean that "the Government of Andhra Pradesh" while being sued or suing, should be described as the "State of Andhra Pradesh". Put another way, the party to the litigation is actually the Government of Andhra Pradesh but the said Government of State is to be described as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Any technical defect, of not naming the appropriate party, in a case where an employee of the State is arrayed as a party instead of the State, can be corrected at the primary level and for such matters can be remanded to the primary level. Further, it is only a case of mis-description when the party is described as the Government of Andhra Pradesh instead of "the State of Andhra Pradesh:. The same can be corrected within the same proceeding.”

It added, "The primary ground raised in this Civil Revision Petition is that the judgment debtor is described as the Government of Andhra Pradesh and not the State of Andhra Pradesh. In view of the above observations of this Court, the said irregularity can be corrected, before the executing court itself. The further contentions relating to the procedure adopted by the executing court does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed."

The dispute arose from a contract issued by the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for construction of the Pulichintala balancing reservoir and dam across the Krishna River. Following a tender process, the work was awarded in 2004 to SCLCR 18G Joint Venture.

During execution of the project, disputes emerged relating to delayed payments, escalation costs, additional works, idle machinery charges and expenses incurred during the extended contract period. The disputes were first referred to a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), and later to a second DAB constituted in 2011.

After the second DAB issued its decision on January 9, 2012, the government issued a notice of dissatisfaction, which led to arbitration.

An arbitral tribunal comprising former judges delivered a majority award on September 3, 2013, granting the contractor approximately Rs 199.96 crore across several claims.

The government challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Principal District Judge at Machilipatnam. The challenge was dismissed on June 2, 2016, following which the government filed the present appeal under Section 37 before the High Court.

During the hearing, the Advocate General argued that the arbitration proceedings were fundamentally defective because the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was the contracting party, had not been impleaded and that proceedings against the Superintending Engineer alone could not bind the state.

Senior counsel appearing for the contractor pushed back against the State's argument, saying the objection was little more than a technicality.

He pointed out that the Government had been involved at every stage of the dispute resolution process. It had issued the notice of dissatisfaction after the second Dispute Adjudication Board's decision and later approached the district court under Section 34 to challenge the arbitral award.

However, the bench clarified that for purposes of litigation under Article 300 of the Constitution, the party must still be described as the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.

Although the Court pointed out that the defect in the cause title was curable, the Government did not take any steps to amend it even after the matter was reopened for further hearing.

The Court noted:

“It would be necessary for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to amend its description to 'The State of Andhra Pradesh'. No such steps have been taken. The written submissions… did not indicate any intention to amend the cause title or to implead the State.”

Holding that the appeal itself was improperly constituted, the High Court declined to examine the merits of the challenge to the arbitral award and dismissed the appeal.

A connected revision petition challenging execution proceedings for recovery of the awarded amount was also dismissed. The Court observed that any defect in the description of parties could be corrected before the executing court.

For Appellant (Government of Andhra Pradesh): Advocate General for Andhra Pradesh, Advocate Yathindra Dev D.

For Respondent (M/s SCLCR 18G Joint Venture): Senior Advocate B. Adinarayana Rao for Advocate Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri.