Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
M/S IRB AHMEDABAD VADODARA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAY PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against arbitral award by irb. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of the concession agreement (ca). (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. jurisdiction under the arbitration act. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. irb seeks compensation due to competing road. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. examination of arbitral tribunal's decision. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. judicial review of arbitral contract interpretation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. conclusion on reinitiation of arbitral proceedings. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
The challenge and issue in controversy
1. Under challenge at the instance of IRB Ahmedabad Super Expressway [“IRB” hereinafter], in the present petition preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the 1996 Act” hereinafter] is an arbitral award passed by a learned three-member Arbitral Tribunal on 7 April 2024. IRB was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, and the National Highways Authority of India [NHAI] was the respondent and counter-claimant.
2. The challenge, in this petition, is restricted to the rejection, by the Arbitral Tribunal, of the claim of IRB for compensation, from NHAI, under Article 35.4 of the Con
The court affirmed that compensation under Article 35.4 of the Concession Agreement should not depend on whether a competing road opened to traffic before toll collection commenced, necessitating a r....
Limited judicial interference with arbitral land compensation awards under Sec.34/37; enhancement for commercial use upheld; separate easementary compensation allowed in partial acquisition affecting....
In international commercial arbitration, challenges to awards are limited to specific legal grounds, and mere dissatisfaction with arbitral decisions does not constitute public policy violations.
Court held that an arbitrator cannot remand matters back to competent authority after initial determination, affirming the arbitrary powers under Section 3G(5) of NHAI Act and the doctrine of acquies....
Point of Law - Limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court vested in it by Section 34 of the 1996 Act, no occasion arises for this Court to revisit the said findings of the learned Arbitral Tribu....
Limited grounds for interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
Point of Law : Limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court vested in it by Section 34 of the 1996 Act, no occasion arises for this Court to revisit the said findings of the learned Arbitral Tribu....
The Court can partially set aside an arbitral Award and has limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court cannot modify an Award but can set ....
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
