loader image

SC Keeps Maintainability Issue Open in Reliance’s Arbitration Plea Over Panna Mukta-Tapti Production Sharing Contracts

SC Keeps Maintainability Issue Open in Reliance’s Arbitration Plea Over Panna Mukta-Tapti Production Sharing Contracts

Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 23439/2026 [Order dated August 07, 2026]

Panna Mukta Tapti arbitration dispute

The Supreme Court on Friday kept open the question of maintainability in Reliance Industries’ plea arising from the enforcement of international arbitral awards in the Panna Mukta and Tapti oil and gas field dispute, observing that the issue could be urged after the Delhi High Court decides the pending appeal on the merits.

Appearing for Reliance Industries, Senior Advocate Harish Salve submitted that although he had challenged the maintainability of the appeal before the Delhi High Court, the Division Bench had rejected his objection and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. He submitted that he did not seek to stall the proceedings but only wanted the maintainability issue to remain open.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve

Responding to the submissions, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana clarified that it would keep the question of maintainability open without deciding it at this stage. It observed that entertaining the special leave petition on a piecemeal basis would serve no useful purpose and that the issue could be raised at the appropriate stage after the High Court decides the appeal on the merits.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana

Appearing for the Union of India, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that after the impugned order, the Division Bench had already heard the matter extensively on merits and that the case was at its final stage. He submitted that the Court need not interfere at this stage. Later in the hearing, the Attorney General also pointed out that the maintainability objection was being repeatedly relied upon to resist enforcement of the arbitral award.

“This interlocutory indulgence may be a luxury for the appellant. We may take a strict call on all these kinds of interlocutory indulgences. And then we say a court is interfering in matters of arbitration…This whole issue of maintainability is a very good excuse for Reliance to keep on saying that, ‘Don’t get any enforcement done.

Responding to the concern, the Bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the issue and was merely preserving the parties’ rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court kept the issue of maintainability open, while allowing the Delhi High Court to proceed with the appeal on the merits.