Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board 2026 INSC 116 -Arbitration - Precedent & Res Judicata
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (pre 2015 amendment position) - Section 11,34,37 -Not only will the parties be bound before the Arbitrator with regard to the finding on existence and validity of the arbitration agreement they will also be bound during the subsequent stages of the proceedings which will include the Section 34 application stage, the Section 37 appeal stage and before this Court. (Para 31)
Precedent and Res Judicata - A decision between two parties which sets out a principle of law will operate as a precedent for disputes between two other parties too. A precedent operates in rem. In contrast, a res judicata operates in personam between the same parties either in the later stage of the same litigation between them or in a different litigation between them- In res judicata, the correctness of the decision is normally immaterial and it does not matter whether the previous decision was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body. (Para 24)
Case Info
Case information
Case name and neutral citation:M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors., 2026 INSC 116
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. PardiwalaHon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan (author of the judgment)
Judgment date:4 February 2026
Caselaws and citations referred
- SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 618
- State of West Bengal v. Sarkar & Sarkar, (2018) 12 SCC 736
- In re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1
- Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1
- Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729
- Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 234
- State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 179
- Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 782
- Makhija Construction & Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 304
- Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr., (2018) 16 SCC 228
- Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios, (1981) 1 SCC 523 (referred via quotation)
- Rajasthan High Court decisions relied on by the Commercial Court / High Court below:
- Mohammed Arif Contractor v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Arbitration No. 90/2012
- M/s Marudhar Construction v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors., S.B. Arbitration Application No. 132/2014
Statutes / laws referred
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 4
- Section 7
- Section 8
- Section 11, including sub-sections (4), (5), (6), (6A), (7)
- Section 16
- Section 21
- Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
- Sections 34 and 37
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (2015 Amendment Act)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 11 (res judicata) and Explanation I
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in the context of the 2024 “Interplay” reference)
- Constitution of India
- Article 136
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act), Section 28 (as an illustration in Canara Bank / Natraj Studios discussion)
Brief summary
The Supreme Court held that, since the arbitrators in both appeals were appointed under Section 11 during the SBP & Co. regime (prior to the 2015 amendments), the Section 11 court’s implicit finding that Clause 23 was a valid arbitration clause was binding on the parties and could not be re-opened either before the arbitral tribunal or in Section 34 proceedings. It clarified the distinction between precedent and res judicata, holding that the earlier Section 11 order, though not a precedent for others, operated as res judicata between these parties on the question of existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, rendering the Commercial Court’s and High Court’s contrary view erroneous. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court and Commercial Court judgments in both matters and remitted the Section 34 cases to the Commercial Court, Jaipur, to decide all remaining objections to the awards within three months, without re‑examining Clause 23.
