Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court

No Interference with the Arbitral Award Would be Warranted Unless the View is Patently Illegal or Perverse – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment announced on 19th September 2023, the Delhi High Court has settled the ongoing litigation between the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd. The Court has upheld the arbitral award dated 07.07.2016 and emphasized limited judicial interference with arbitration awards.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri presided over the matter filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The case revolved around a dispute related to the delay in the completion of a highway project in Tamil Nadu. D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd. had claimed various amounts as compensation for delays and additional costs incurred.

"The scope of interference under section 34 of the Act is limited. The arbitral tribunal is the final adjudicating authority in respect of the disputes between the parties, as well as the interpretation of the agreement between them," the judge noted in his observation. He added, "No interference with the arbitral award would be warranted unless the Court finds that the view is patently illegal or perverse."

The Court further clarified that sub-clauses 13.5.1 and 13.5.2, dealing with compensation for delays in handing over the site, were not applicable in this case. Instead, the court concluded that the computation of damages should be done according to sub-clause 31.2 of the Concession Agreement.

This decision has clarified the limits of judicial intervention in arbitration matters and will likely serve as a precedent in similar future disputes.

NHAI had challenged the arbitral award that granted various compensatory amounts to D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd. The contractor had raised six claims amounting to various figures, and the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded interest on these claims as well.

Legal experts are viewing the decision as a strong endorsement of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, where courts are not to interfere unless absolutely necessary, according to the standards set by Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

In the words of the judge, "The Court is not meant to act as a court of first appeal, and cannot supplant its view over that of the arbitral tribunal."

The judgment has been received with great interest by the legal community and could have significant implications for arbitration proceedings in India going forward.

 Date of Decision: September 19, 2023

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs D S TOLL ROADS PVT. LTD.             

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/NHAI_Vs_D_S_Tolls_19_Sept_2023_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News