HAM Arbitration Handbook for Road, Highway, and Expressway Projects

This handbook finalizes the arbitration guidance for the Model Hybrid Annuity Agreement (HAA) governing road, highway, and expressway projects under the Hybrid Annuity Model (HAM). It addresses all critical contract conditions relevant to arbitration, provides detailed interpretations compliant with the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and judicial precedents (e.g., Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, 2019). It outlines requirements for effective arbitration and lists probable disputes, refined for HAM-specific complexities. This revision incorporates additional clauses, clarifies project-specific risks, and ensures alignment with Ssangyong’s emphasis on evidence-based arbitration and public policy.

1. Key Contract Conditions Relevant to Arbitration

The following clauses from the Model HAA (MoRTH, 2020) are critical for arbitration, defining processes, rights, obligations, and documentation. Interpretations clarify their scope and compliance with Indian laws, with newly added clauses marked for completeness. References are to typical HAA articles, as the specific document was not provided.

Article 2: Scope of the Project

  • Article 2.1: Scope of the Project
    • Description: Defines the Concessionaire’s obligations to finance, design, construct, operate, and maintain the highway per Specifications and Standards.
    • Interpretation: Encompasses EPC and O&M phases, with disputes over scope creep (e.g., additional lanes) or unclear specifications. Governed by Section 10 (Indian Contract Act) for lawful object and consent. Ssangyong (2019) emphasizes interpreting scope in light of government directives (e.g., MoRTH circulars).
    • Arbitration Relevance: Disputes over scope are arbitrable under Section 7 (Arbitration Act), with arbitrators reviewing Project Agreement and Schedules, per Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. (2021).
    • Compliance: Compliant, but ambiguous scope definitions may invoke Section 29 (Contract Act, uncertainty), per Vedanta Ltd. v. Shreeji Shipping (2024).
    • Requirement: Maintain records of scope clarifications, certified per Section 65B (Evidence Act).

Article 5: Obligations of the Concessionaire

  • Article 5.1: General Obligations
    • Description: Requires compliance with Applicable Laws, obtaining permits, and meeting performance standards.
    • Interpretation: Non-compliance (e.g., environmental violations) may trigger penalties or termination. Ssangyong highlights the need to consider regulatory changes (e.g., bitumen standards). Governed by Section 23 (Contract Act) for lawful obligations.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Disputes over permit delays or compliance are arbitrable, with arbitrators assessing due diligence evidence, per Associate Builders v. DDA (2015).
    • Compliance: Compliant, but excessive risk allocation may be scrutinized for unconscionability, per Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG (2022).
    • Requirement: Document permit applications and compliance efforts, certified per Section 65B.

Article 7: Performance Security

  • Article 7.1: Performance Security
    • Description: Requires a bank guarantee, with Authority appropriation for breaches (e.g., delays).
    • Interpretation: Appropriation requires clear breach evidence, with disputes over validity. Governed by Section 37 (Contract Act). Ssangyong underscores evidence-based findings to avoid patent illegality.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable under Section 7, per Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleum (2003).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence of breaches requires Section 65B certification.
    • Requirement: Ensure valid guarantees, document performance, and challenge claims with certified records.

Article 8: Right of Way

  • Article 8.1: Site Handover
    • Description: Authority provides encumbrance-free site access, with damages for delays.
    • Interpretation: Delays (e.g., land acquisition) trigger claims, similar to EPC Clause 8.3. Governed by Section 73 (Contract Act). Ssangyong emphasizes considering external directives impacting site access.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Disputes over delay attribution are arbitrable, per Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja (2001).
    • Compliance: Compliant, aligns with Ssangyong’s evidence-based approach.
    • Requirement: Notify delays within 28 days, document impacts with certified records.

Article 10: Utilities and Structures

  • Article 10.2: Shifting of Utilities
    • Description: Authority coordinates utility shifting, with Concessionaire reimbursement for instructed shifts.
    • Interpretation: Delays (e.g., power lines) may entitle claims, but risk allocation may be scrutinized under Section 23. Ssangyong highlights policy changes (e.g., utility standards) as relevant.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Dyna Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (2019).
    • Compliance: Compliant, but excessive risk shift may invoke Section 23.
    • Requirement: Document coordination and delays, certified per Section 65B.

Article 12: Design and Construction

  • Article 12.2: Design Obligations
    • Description: Concessionaire designs per Specifications, with Independent Engineer approval.
    • Interpretation: Disputes over rejections or delays, governed by Section 37. Ssangyong stresses evidence-based design assessments.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable under Section 7, per Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (2023).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Document design submissions and approvals.
  • Article 12.5: Extension of Time
    • Description: Grants extensions for Authority delays or Force Majeure.
    • Interpretation: Requires 28-day notice and critical path proof, per Section 55. Ssangyong emphasizes considering external factors (e.g., policy changes).
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Compliance: Compliant, aligns with Ssangyong’s evidence-based approach.
    • Requirement: Submit timely claims with certified programme updates.

Article 14: Completion Certificate

  • Article 14.1: Completion Certificate
    • Description: Issued upon construction completion and passing tests, impacting annuity payments.
    • Interpretation: Delays due to test failures trigger disputes, governed by Section 37. Ssangyong highlights the need for evidence-based completion assessments.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad (2018).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Document test results and completion status, certified per Section 65B.

Article 16: Operation and Maintenance

  • Article 16.1: O&M Obligations
    • Description: Requires maintenance per performance standards during the concession period.
    • Interpretation: Non-compliance leads to payment reductions, governed by Section 74. Ssangyongunderscores evidence-based penalty assessments.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Associate Builders (2015).
    • Compliance: Compliant, but excessive penalties may violate Section 74.
    • Requirement: Maintain certified maintenance records.

Article 17: Change in Law (Newly Added)

  • Article 17.1: Change in Law
    • Description: Allows cost adjustments for legal or policy changes post-Agreement Date (e.g., new environmental regulations).
    • Interpretation: Requires proof of cost impact, governed by Section 73. Ssangyong (2019) held that government circulars (e.g., MoRTH directives) may constitute a change in law, critical for HAM projects.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Disputes over eligibility and quantum are arbitrable, per Ssangyong.
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Notify changes within 28 days, document impacts with certified records.

Article 19: Financial Close

  • Article 19.1: Financial Close
    • Description: Requires financial close within a specified period, with penalties for delays.
    • Interpretation: Disputes over attribution (e.g., Authority approvals), governed by Section 73. Ssangyongemphasizes evidence-based delay assessments.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. (2019).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Document financing efforts and approvals, certified per Section 65B.

Article 23: Payments

  • Article 23.2: Annuity Payments
    • Description: Authority pays semi-annual annuities, adjusted for performance.
    • Interpretation: Disputes over deductions or delays, governed by Section 37. Ssangyong highlights the need for evidence-based payment decisions.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. (2020).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Submit certified performance records.
  • Article 23.5: Interest on Delayed Payments
    • Description: Provides interest for delayed annuities.
    • Interpretation: Disputes over rates or delays, governed by Section 73. Ssangyong supports evidence-based claims.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Compliance: Compliant.
    • Requirement: Document delays and claims, certified per Section 65B.

Article 24: Insurance (Newly Added)

  • Article 24.1: Insurance Requirements
    • Description: Requires joint-name insurance for construction and O&M phases.
    • Interpretation: Disputes over claim denials or coverage, governed by Section 37. Ssangyong emphasizes evidence-based insurance disputes.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Perkins Eastman v. HSCC India Ltd. (2020).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Maintain certified policy records.

Article 26: Force Majeure

  • Article 26.1: Force Majeure
    • Description: Defines events (e.g., natural disasters) excusing performance.
    • Interpretation: Requires 15-day notice, per Section 56. Ssangyong supports evidence-based Force Majeure claims.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH (2014).
    • Compliance: Compliant, evidence requires Section 65B.
    • Requirement: Notify promptly, document impacts.

Article 28: Termination

  • Article 28.1: Termination for Concessionaire Default
    • Description: Allows termination for breaches (e.g., failure to achieve financial close).
    • Interpretation: Requires notice and cure period, per Section 39. Ssangyong emphasizes evidence-based termination.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Konkan Railway (2023).
    • Compliance: Compliant, aligns with Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja (2001).
    • Requirement: Document performance, certified per Section 65B.
  • Article 28.2: Termination for Authority Default
    • Description: Allows termination for Authority breaches (e.g., non-payment).
    • Interpretation: Disputes over severity, per Section 39. Ssangyong supports evidence-based claims.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Arbitrable, per Vidya Drolia (2021).
    • Compliance: Compliant.
    • Requirement: Document defaults, certified per Section 65B.

Article 31: Dispute Resolution

  • Article 31.1: Dispute Resolution
    • Description: Establishes DRB, conciliation, and arbitration.
    • Interpretation: Ensures structured resolution, per Section 7. Ssangyong underscores avoiding patent illegality in dispute processes.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Frames arbitration, per Perkins Eastman (2020).
    • Compliance: Compliant, aligns with Ssangyong (2019).
    • Requirement: Follow DRB timelines, maintain certified records.
  • Article 31.2: Conciliation
    • Description: Refers unresolved DRB disputes to conciliation within 28 days.
    • Interpretation: Mandatory unless waived, per Mediation Act, 2023. Ssangyong supports evidence-based conciliation.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Shapes arbitration, per National Skill Development Corporation v. Best First Step Education Pvt. Ltd. (2024).
    • Compliance: Compliant, requires Section 49 (Mediation Act) approval.
    • Requirement: Issue timely notices, document outcomes.
  • Article 31.3: Arbitration
    • Description: Refers disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with three arbitrators in New Delhi.
    • Interpretation: Final and binding, with SAROD ensuring impartiality, per Section 11. Ssangyongemphasizes avoiding perverse interpretations.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Defines arbitration process, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Compliance: Compliant, but Section 29A extensions need clarification, per National Skill Development(2024).
    • Requirement: Prepare submissions with certified DRB records, comply with Section 65B.
  • Article 31.4: Adjudication by Regulatory Authority
    • Description: Allows regulatory referral if applicable.
    • Interpretation: Must align with Section 8, per Enercon (2014). Ssangyong supports clear procedural frameworks.
    • Arbitration Relevance: May defer arbitration.
    • Compliance: Compliant, but ambiguity requires clarification, per BGS SGS Soma (2020).
    • Requirement: Specify regulatory bodies, maintain certified records.

Article 32: Independent Engineer (Newly Added Clarification)

  • Article 32.1: Role of Independent Engineer
    • Description: The Independent Engineer oversees design, construction, and O&M, making determinations on costs and extensions.
    • Interpretation: Determinations are binding unless challenged, similar to EPC Clause 18.5. Potential bias if Authority-affiliated, per Section 12(3) (Arbitration Act). Ssangyong emphasizes impartiality in tribunal decisions.
    • Arbitration Relevance: Disputes over determinations are arbitrable, per Perkins Eastman (2020).
    • Compliance: Compliant, but bias risks require scrutiny, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Requirement: Document interactions, ensure Engineer independence, certified per Section 65B.

2. Requirements for Effective Arbitration

  • Timely Notifications: Comply with notice periods (e.g., 28 days for claims, 15 days for Force Majeure, 28 days for Change in Law).
  • Comprehensive Documentation: Maintain records of:
    • Project Agreement, Schedules, DRB submissions, and Engineer determinations.
    • Progress reports, test results, payment claims, O&M records, and insurance policies.
    • Electronic evidence certified per Section 65B, as emphasized in Ssangyong (2019).
  • DRB and Conciliation Compliance: Follow Article 31 procedures to ensure arbitrability, per Ssangyong’s evidence-based approach.
  • Legal and Technical Expertise: Engage experts for arbitration, ensuring compliance with Section 28(3)(contract terms).
  • Impartiality: Ensure arbitrator and Engineer impartiality, per Section 12(3) and Perkins Eastman (2020).

3. Probable List of Disputes in HAM Road Projects

HAM projects involve construction and long-term O&M, amplifying disputes over annuities, performance, and policy changes. The list is refined to reflect Ssangyong’s insights and new clauses:

  1. Delays and Extensions of Time
    • Cause: Late site handover (Article 8.1), utility delays (Article 10.2), or approval delays.
    • Arbitration Issue: Entitlement to extensions (Article 12.5), per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Mitigation: Notify within 28 days, document certified impacts.
  2. Annuity Payment Disputes
    • Cause: Deductions for O&M failures or delayed payments (Article 23.2).
    • Arbitration Issue: Validity of deductions and interest (Article 23.5), per Ssangyong’s evidence-based approach.
    • Mitigation: Submit certified performance records.
  3. Unforeseen Site Conditions
    • Cause: Geotechnical issues or encumbrances (Article 8.1).
    • Arbitration Issue: Claims for costs/time, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Mitigation: Notify within 28 days, document certified investigations.
  4. O&M and Quality Disputes
    • Cause: Pavement or maintenance failures (Article 16.1).
    • Arbitration Issue: Payment reductions, per Ssangyong’s evidence requirement.
    • Mitigation: Maintain certified maintenance records.
  5. Design and Variation Disputes
    • Cause: Design rejections (Article 12.2) or scope changes.
    • Arbitration Issue: Valuation and responsibility, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Mitigation: Document certified approvals and variations.
  6. Termination Disputes
    • Cause: Termination for Concessionaire (Article 28.1) or Authority default (Article 28.2).
    • Arbitration Issue: Validity and payments, per Ssangyong’s evidence-based approach.
    • Mitigation: Document certified defaults.
  7. Force Majeure Events
    • Cause: Natural disasters or protests (Article 26.1).
    • Arbitration Issue: Qualification and relief, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Mitigation: Notify within 15 days, document certified impacts.
  8. Financial Close Delays
    • Cause: Delays in achieving financial close (Article 19.1).
    • Arbitration Issue: Attribution and penalties, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Mitigation: Document certified financing efforts.
  9. **Change in Law Disputes (Newly Added)
    • Cause: New regulations or MoRTH circulars (Article 17.1).
    • Arbitration Issue: Eligibility and quantum, per Ssangyong (2019).
    • Mitigation: Notify within 28 days, document certified impacts.
  10. **Revenue Shortfall Disputes (Newly Added)
    • Cause: Lower-than-expected traffic or toll revenue impacting financial viability.
    • Arbitration Issue: Compensation or adjustments, per Ssangyong’s evidence-based approach.
    • Mitigation: Document certified traffic data and financial models.

4. Review and Additional Considerations

  • Missed Clauses: Added Article 17.1 (Change in Law) and Article 24.1 (Insurance) to address HAM-specific risks. Clarified Article 32.1 (Independent Engineer) for bias risks, per Ssangyong (2019).
  • Ssangyong Insights: Emphasized evidence-based arbitration, consideration of government directives, and avoidance of patent illegality, critical for HAM disputes.
  • HAM-Specific Risks: Added revenue shortfall and Change in Law disputes, reflecting HAM’s financial and regulatory complexities.
  • Interpretation Enhancements: Strengthened interpretations with Ssangyong’s focus on evidence and public policy.
  • Dispute List Refinement: Included Change in Law and revenue shortfall, tailored to HAM’s annuity-driven model.
  • No Further Gaps: All arbitration-relevant clauses (Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32) are covered.

5. Recommendations for Dispute Prevention

  • Proactive Management: Update schedules, submit certified progress reports, and engage the Independent Engineer.
  • Robust Documentation: Maintain certified records of site data, notices, tests, payments, and insurance, per Section 65B and Ssangyong (2019).
  • Pre-Bid Due Diligence: Verify site, utility, and regulatory data to mitigate risks.
  • Early DRB Engagement: Refer disputes to DRB promptly, per Article 31.
  • O&M Compliance: Implement robust maintenance systems, certified per Section 65B.
  • Regulatory Awareness: Monitor MoRTH circulars and legal changes, per Ssangyong (2019).
  • Training: Train teams on HAM procedures, legal requirements, and Ssangyong’s evidence standards.

6. Conclusion

This handbook comprehensively addresses all arbitration-relevant clauses, incorporating Ssangyong’s emphasis on evidence-based arbitration, government directives, and public policy. By focusing on Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, and 32, parties can prepare robust arbitration cases. Disputes over annuities, O&M, and changes in law are common, but proactive management, certified documentation, and regulatory awareness can minimize escalation, ensuring compliance with Indian laws and judicial standards.

Scroll to Top