Section25
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Default of a party

In force From 22 Aug 1996 Act 26 of 1996 As on 14 Oct 2026

Act 26 of 1996 Ministry Law and Justice Enacted 16 Aug 1996 In force 22 Aug 1996 Cited by 1 provision

Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with default of a party. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where, without showing sufficient cause,— (a) the claimant fails to communicate his statement of claim in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 23, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings; The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where, without showing sufficient cause,—

(a) the claimant fails to communicate his statement of claim in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 23, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings;

(b) the respondent fails to communicate his statement of defence in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 23, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the proceedings without treating that failure in itself as an admission of the allegations by the claimant 1[and shall have the discretion to treat the right of the respondent to file such statement of defence as having been forfeited].

(c) a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the arbitral award on the evidence before it.

Section 25, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).

Cross-references

Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.

Referred to by 1

  1. s. 2 Definitions

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

  1. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited

    Supreme Court of India 20 Sep 2017 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    An arbitral tribunal which has terminated proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to non-filing of claim by the claimant retains jurisdiction to consider an application for recall of the order terminating the proceedings if the claimant shows sufficient cause. The tribunal does not become functus officio after passing an order under Section 25(a). The phrase 'where without showing sufficient cause' in Section 25(a) contemplates that sufficient cause can be shown either before or after the termination order is passed. If sufficient cause is shown, the arbitral tribunal can accept the statement of claim and permit the claimant to file the claim even after the time fixed under Section 23(1) has expired. The principles underlying Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can be invoked by the arbitral tribunal to recall orders passed under Section 25(a) on sufficient cause being shown. The non-use of the phrase 'the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate' in Section 25(a), as opposed to its use in Section 32(3), indicates that the legislature intended that if the claimant shows sufficient cause, the proceedings can be re-commenced.

    On this section: Core provision: where claimant fails to communicate statement of claim without showing sufficient cause, arbitral tribunal shall terminate proceedings. Court held that sufficient cause can be shown even after termination order is passed.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. Dani Wooltex Corporation vs Sheil Properties Private Limited

    Supreme Court of India 16 May 2024 Binding (SC) Reportable 2024 INSC 433

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The power under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be exercised only when the Arbitral Tribunal records its satisfaction based on material on record that the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Abandonment of a claim can be a ground to invoke this power, but abandonment cannot be readily inferred. Abandonment can be express or implied, but implied abandonment requires admitted or proved facts that are so clinching and convincing that the only inference which can be drawn is of abandonment. Mere failure of a claimant to request the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary or that the claim has been abandoned. It is the Arbitral Tribunal's duty to fix meetings and hearing dates, and it cannot abdicate this duty by requiring parties to request such dates. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot exercise its power under Section 32(2)(c) casually or without proper factual foundation, as doing so would defeat the very object of the Arbitration Act.

    On this section: Default of a party; mandatory termination if claimant fails to file statement of claim; discretionary continuation if respondent fails to file defence; tribunal may proceed if party fails to appear at hearing

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Questions about Section 25

What have the courts held on Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited (20 Sep 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Core provision: where claimant fails to communicate statement of claim without showing sufficient cause, arbitral tribunal shall terminate proceedings. Court held that sufficient cause can be shown even after termination order is passed. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2017 to 2024.

How do I find court cases under Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 25, section 25 Arbitration Act, section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type 25a arbitration act and 25 arbitration act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited (20 Sep 2017).

What should I read with Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?

Its own text turns on section 23 (Statements of claim and defence), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.

When did Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?

Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 25, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.