Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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