Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Tribunal Cannot Deny Respondent’s Claims Solely on Ground of Non-Consideration of Relevant Material: Delhi HC Upholds GMR’s Arbitral Award

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has affirmed the decision of an arbitral tribunal concerning a commercial dispute between National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Ltd. Over financial claims triggered by a “Change in Law,” especially in relation to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and changes in sand mining policies.

NHAI appealed against an arbitral award that favored GMR, arguing the tribunal improperly interpreted the concession agreement’s “Change in Law” provisions. GMR’s claims were originally dismissed by NHAI, citing insufficient substantiation regarding the adverse financial impacts stemming from legal and policy alterations that affected traffic volumes and revenue projections for a highway project. These legal changes included court orders and government policies that significantly altered the operational landscape and financial forecasting for GMR.

The Court affirmed the tribunal’s conclusion that the changes in sand mining regulations and the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into two states constituted a “Change in Law” under the concession agreement. The resultant regulatory changes were held to significantly impact the traffic flow and revenue projections that formed the basis of the original financial model.

The High Court emphasized the limited scope of its intervention in arbitral decisions, aligning with the principle that judicial interference is warranted only when there is an evident perversity in the arbitral process or outcome that goes to the root of the matter.

The court upheld the minority arbitral award which redirected the assessment of the claim from NHAI to an independent arbitrator, avoiding potential bias and ensuring a fair review process.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals by NHAI, affirming the arbitral award in favor of GMR. The tribunal’s direction for a reassessment of the financial claims by an independent arbitrator was upheld, thereby confirming the applicability of the “Change in Law” provisions to the financial adjustments claimed by GMR.

Date of Decision: May 07, 2024

National Highways Authority of India vs. GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Ltd.

Latest Legal News