MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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