Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority - Petitioner
Versus
Mumbai Metro One Private Limited - Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 427 of 2024, Interim Application No. 3495 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to majority arbitral award under section 34. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of metro-1 project and concession agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. claims, counterclaims, and operative parts of awards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. procedural history and intervention application. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments on perversity and patent illegality. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. respondent's defense upholding award's reasoned findings. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 7. overview of disputes and scope of section 34 review. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 8. limited judicial interference under section 34 principles. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 9. mmrda's obligation for encumbrance-free row within 180 days. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 10. mmrda responsible for project delay via row failure. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93) |
| 11. entitlement to damages beyond concession extension. (Para 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101) |
| 12. proof of total project cost increase upheld. (Para 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112) |
| 13. foreign exchange loss in system works compensated. (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121) |
| 14. overhead expenses claim rejected for lack of evidence. (Para 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152) |
| 15. additional interest claim set aside absent proof. (Para 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170) |
| 16. opportunity cost claim unsustainable without evidence. (Para 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184) |
| 17. andheri bridge change qualifies as scope variation. (Para 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204) |
| 18. wadala rent reimbursement upheld partially. (Para 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223) |
| 19. severability applied to modify unsustainable claims. (Para 224 , 225 , 226) |
| 20. award partly sustained; deposit handling ordered. (Para 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1) By this Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), Petitioner has challenged majority Award delivered by the three-member Arbitral Tribunal on 29 August 2023. The majority Award has allowed claims of the Respondents in the sum of about Rs. 496.48 crores along with interest. The Award directs Petitioner to pay to the Respondent Rs. 35 crores towards deductions made in the tranches of Viability Gap Fund alongwith interest. The Award directs Petitioner to pay to the Respondent amount of Rs. 13,16,00,000/- towards compensation for additional cost incurred on account of payment of rent for the land at Wadala together with interest. Petitioner is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,48,00,000/- towards construction of steel bridge instead of concrete bridge at Andheri Station alongwith interest. The Petitioner is further directed to pay to the Respondent amount of Rs.411,70,21,968/- towards increase in the cost of the Project. The Arbitral Award also holds Respondent entitled to extension of time for completion of Project upto 7 June 2011. The award grants pendent lite interest, post award interest, as well as costs of arbitration in favour of the Respondent. All counterclaims of the Petitioner have been rejected in the majority Award.
2) A separate dissenting Award has been delivered by the learned co-arbitrator on 29 August 2023 rejecting all claims of the Respondent with a direction to the Respondent
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
Arbitral awards set aside partly for patent illegality where head office overhead claims lack evidentiary support like unverified CA certificates without witness testimony, despite upholding other pr....
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
The court upheld the arbitral tribunal's findings on delays caused by the Municipal Corporation but set aside the award for loss of profit due to insufficient evidence.
The court upheld the tribunal's award, concluding that the claims did not fall under 'excepted matters' and corroborated the contractor's entitlement to claims based on inadequate adjudication by the....
The judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is restricted to issues of patent illegality, ensuring that arbitrator's findings are not disturbed unless they fundamenta....
The need for evidence to establish loss of profits and the court's discretion to modify the interest rate as agreed upon by the parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
