Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bombay High Court Ruling In Vedanta–Sunflag LAM Coke Arbitration Dispute

The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Vedanta Ltd's writ petition challenging an arbitral order in its dispute with Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd over the purchase and supply of LAM Coke. The court also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the company.

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Vedanta's special leave petition, observing:

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, however, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) which shall be paid to 'Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA)' within two weeks from today.”

The dispute arises out of arbitration proceedings before a sole arbitrator appointed to resolve differences between the parties concerning the supply of LAM Coke.

On December 19, 2025, the arbitrator turned down Vedanta's request to reopen the examination of its witness, Anup Deo, and to bring additional power-of-attorney documents on record.

The witness had earlier filed his affidavit in evidence on December 4, 2024. His examination-in-chief began on March 11, 2025 and was later continued, including on September 5, 2025. Cross-examination started on September 11, 2025 and concluded on September 20, 2025. He was not re-examined thereafter.

Thereafter, on December 6, 2025, Vedanta moved an application seeking to reopen the witness's examination and to place on record certain board resolutions and powers of attorney to establish the authority of its authorised signatory in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator rejected the request.

Vedanta then moved the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the arbitral order.

In a judgment dated February 12, 2026, Justice Pravin S. Patil dismissed the writ petition, observing that the petitioner had already been given adequate opportunity during the arbitration. The Court noted that reopening the evidence after the matter had reached the stage of final arguments would seriously prejudice the respondent.

The High Court further pointed out that the arbitration had been pending for a considerable time and that both sides had earlier sought an extension under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. While granting a six-month extension on June 16, 2025, the Court had made it clear that no further time would be given.

Against this background, the Court held that no satisfactory explanation had been offered for not producing the documents earlier. It observed that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any perversity or exceptional circumstance warranting interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, and dismissed the petition. The High Court made no order as to costs.

The Supreme Court, in its brief order, declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the special leave petition with costs.

Click Here To Read/Download Bombay HC Judgment