PRO TIP when you face a Business Conflict

Collaborate, Don't Confront: In ADR, success lies in collaboration, not confrontation. Embrace open communication, actively listen, and work together towards a solution that benefits all parties involved.

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us

Share this page

NHAI vs. D.S. Toll Roads: Delhi High Court Weighs in on Contractual Delays

The High Court of Delhi has underscored that a delay in the delivery of the Right of Way constitutes a significant breach of contract, particularly if it hinders the issuance of a Completion Certificate or delays the Commercial Date of Operation (COD). Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri's bench recently upheld an arbitral award, emphasizing NHAI's material breach of contract due to their failure in providing the Right of Way or work front to the contractor. This failure resulted in delays in issuing the provisional completion certificate and subsequently, the commercial date of operation.

In this case titled "NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 546 of 2016," the parties initially entered into an agreement dated 30.01.2006, and a supplementary agreement dated 06.03.2014. Under these agreements, NHAI (the petitioner) awarded certain construction and maintenance work concerning a national highway in Tamil Nadu on a build, operate, and transfer (BOT) basis.

The commercial date of operation (COD) was stipulated as 29.01.2009, yet due to delays in handing over the Right of Way (ROW), the project work could only be completed on 28.09.2009. Consequently, the Contractor initiated arbitration, seeking damages on various grounds, including additional expenses due to extended stay on the project site and loss of revenue resulting from the delay in COD. The arbitrator, in the impugned award dated 07.07.2016, partially allowed the contractor's claims, affirming NHAI's material breach of contract due to the delay in handing over the work front/ROW.

NHAI, dissatisfied with the award, challenged it under Section 34 of the A&C Act, citing specific grounds of challenge. Among these grounds was the contention that the delay in handing over the ROW did not constitute a material breach of the contract. The petitioner argued that compensation for this delay was already provided for in the agreement under Clause 13.5.

However, the Court noted that the delay in handing over the ROW/working front was undisputed. The key point of contention was the arbitrator's interpretation and subsequent compensation for this delay. The Court meticulously analyzed Clause 13.5, which indeed provided for predetermined compensation for a delay in handing over the ROW. However, the proviso to the clause clearly stipulated that the compensation clause would not apply if the delay affected the issuance of Provisional or Final completion certificates or caused delays in COD.

The Court emphatically held that a delay in handing over the Right of Way constitutes a material breach of contract if it affects the issuance of Completion Certificates or delays the Commercial Date of Operation (COD). In alignment with this view, the Court supported the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of Clause 13.5, highlighting that such an interpretation warranted no interference.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court reaffirms that a delay in handing over the work front, specifically the Right of Way, constitutes a material breach of contract when it impedes the issuance of Completion Certificates or disrupts the Commercial Date of Operation. The Court's ruling underscores the importance of adhering to contract stipulations and timely project execution to ensure a seamless and lawful business operation within the BOT framework.

The legal proceedings and analyses presented in this case serve as a valuable precedent for similar disputes in the realm of infrastructure and contract law. It elucidates the judiciary's stance on contract breaches and the importance of timely execution of projects as per the agreed terms. The case also highlights the significance of clear contractual clauses and their interpretation in the event of a dispute.

The Court's affirmation that a delay in handing over the Right of Way can be a material breach of contract has far-reaching implications. It accentuates the critical role that the timely handover of essential project components plays in the successful execution of large-scale projects. The adherence to project timelines and the fulfillment of contractual obligations are imperative for maintaining a fair and transparent business environment.

Furthermore, the case illuminates the limited scope of interference that the courts exercise in arbitral awards. It reaffirms the principle that arbitral tribunals are the final adjudicators in disputes between parties, and their interpretations of contracts hold significant weight. The Court's reluctance to substitute its view over that of the arbitral tribunal emphasizes the importance of the arbitral process and the need for parties to abide by its decisions.

Delays in project completion can have cascading effects on various stakeholders, including the government, contractors, and the general public. Timely completion of projects is essential to ensure the intended benefits are realized within the projected timeframes. This case serves as a reminder to all parties involved in infrastructure projects to honor their contractual commitments, thus contributing to the overall progress and development of the nation.

This Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd establishes a significant legal precedent regarding delays in project completion and their implications on contractual obligations. The judgement reiterates the importance of honoring contractual agreements and fulfilling obligations within stipulated timelines, ultimately promoting a culture of professionalism and adherence to agreements in the business and infrastructure sectors.

Case Title: NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 546 of 2016