In a somewhat tense courtroom this afternoon, the Supreme Court moved quickly to untangle the scheduling mess surrounding the high-stakes arbitration between NMDC Steel Limited and Danieli. What looked like another routine listing turned into a practical negotiation session, with both sides nudged-sometimes firmly-towards accepting the Tribunal’s freshly communicated plan for oral closing submissions. The judges seemed determined that this already-dragging matter should not slip into mid-2026.
Background
The dispute, currently before an international arbitral tribunal, had been stalled due to uncertainty over dates and logistics. The Tribunal, late on December 4, emailed all parties confirming availability for hearings between 10 and 17 December 2025, with hybrid participation because one member is joining virtually from London. The delay in filing written closing submissions had added another layer of anxiety, as the Tribunal warned that missing this December window could push oral arguments to July 2026, a prospect the bench described as “detrimental to both sides.”
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench indicated it was in no mood to let the matter drift further. “The bench observed, ‘Given the Tribunal’s clear availability, we see no reason for further postponement. Parties must cooperate so that arguments conclude in December itself.’”
The judges referred to the Tribunal’s points-especially the hybrid arrangement, the adjusted 2:30 pm to 9:30 pm IST schedule, and the reminder that written closings were still pending. A small wave of murmurs passed through the advocates’ rows when the Court remarked that refusing these dates would practically “lock” the case until the next July slot.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The bench also touched upon cost concerns. The Solicitor General, representing NMDC Steel, volunteered that arrangements had already been made at Taj Surajkund Resort & Spa, which the Tribunal may use for conducting proceedings. The SG added that alternatives would be provided immediately if the Tribunal found the venue unsuitable. The Court appreciated the effort but reminded both sides that the expenses would eventually be adjusted or apportioned by the Tribunal, not automatically absorbed by one party.
Another notable moment came when the bench clarified that even the respondent’s expenses for booking the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) would remain open for future apportionment.
“The bench observed, ‘All cost questions will be left to the Tribunal; we are only clearing the path for hearings to begin.’”
Read also: Gujarat High Court Rejects State’s Appeal, Says Temple-Visit Quarrel Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty
Decision
Finally, the Supreme Court ordered both parties to accept paragraphs (i) to (iii) of the Tribunal’s email-which include the December dates, hybrid mode, and scheduled timings-while noting that paragraph (iv) (regarding July 2026) need not be applied now. NMDC Steel must share full accommodation details with Tribunal members within two hours, and provide alternatives if required. The Court also directed NMDC to handle all logistical arrangements for the time being, subject to later cost adjustments.
The matter will next be taken up on 8 December 2025. With that, the bench concluded the hearing, ensuring that oral submissions proceed in December and that the dispute avoids a months-long freeze.
Case Title: NMDC Steel Limited vs. Danieli and C. Officine & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 34702/2025
Case Type: Special Leave Petition – Civil
Decision Date: 05 December 2025
