Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: 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