Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2024)
Citation: Curative Petition under Article 142, Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Patent illegality in arbitral awards and contractual interpretation.
Summary: The Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award due to the tribunal’s misinterpretation of the termination clause in a concession agreement. The tribunal equated “effective steps to cure” with “cure,” ignoring DMRC’s incremental progress, constituting patent illegality under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Significance: Emphasizes strict adherence to contract terms and judicial oversight for patent illegalities in infrastructure arbitration.
M/s MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (2023)
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8044
Key Issue: Damages for delays despite contractual limitations.
Summary: The Delhi High Court held that clauses limiting remedies to time extensions for employer-caused delays violate the Indian Contract Act. The tribunal was justified in awarding unliquidated damages for DMRC’s delays.
Key Issue: Scope of judicial intervention under Section 11.
Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that courts under Section 11 should only verify the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving factual disputes (e.g., accord and satisfaction) to the tribunal. The case involved infrastructure contract performance issues.
Significance: Promotes arbitration as the primary forum for infrastructure disputes with minimal judicial interference.
Gujarat Composite Limited v. A Infrastructure Limited & Ors. (2023)
Citation: Supreme Court of India, 2023
Key Issue: Arbitrability in multi-agreement disputes.
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of a commercial suit under Section 8, as the relief sought exceeded the arbitration clause’s scope in one of multiple agreements, including infrastructure-related license and loan agreements.
Significance: Clarifies arbitrability limits in complex, multi-contract infrastructure projects.
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure v. M/S Sukumar Chand Jain (2023)
Citation: Delhi High Court, 2023
Key Issue: Coercion in no-claim certificates.
Summary: The Delhi High Court ruled that no-claim certificates issued as a prerequisite for payment in pre-printed forms are coercive and do not constitute accord and satisfaction, allowing arbitration.
Significance: Protects contractors from unfair practices, ensuring access to arbitration.
Associate Builders v. DDA (2015)
Citation: (2015) 3 SCC 49
Key Issue: Grounds for setting aside arbitral awards.
Summary: The Supreme Court outlined grounds under Section 34, including patent illegality and contract contravention, in a dispute involving infrastructure contract terms.
Significance: Provides a framework for judicial review, balancing award finality with fairness.
Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. Ministry of Railway (2021)
Citation: ARB.P. 327/2021, Delhi High Court
Key Issue: Forfeiture of arbitrator appointment rights.
Summary: The Delhi High Court held that a party forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator if it fails to do so before a Section 11 petition is filed, in a rail infrastructure dispute.
Key Issue: Awarding liquidated damages and patent illegality.
Summary: The Supreme Court clarified that arbitral tribunals cannot award liquidated damages beyond contractual stipulations unless justified by evidence of loss. The case involved an offshore infrastructure project.
Significance: Reinforces the need for tribunals to align awards with contract terms and evidence in infrastructure disputes.
NHAI v. Progressive-MVR (JV) (2018)
Citation: (2018) 14 SCC 688
Key Issue: Scope of arbitral awards and public policy.
Summary: The Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award for granting compensation beyond the contract’s scope, violating public policy. The case involved a highway construction dispute.
Significance: Limits arbitral tribunals’ discretion to award extra-contractual compensation in infrastructure projects.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Construction (2019)
Citation: (2019) 8 SCC 460
Key Issue: Interest on arbitral awards.
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s authority to award interest on delayed payments in a mining infrastructure dispute, emphasizing the discretionary power under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act.
Significance: Clarifies tribunals’ authority to award interest, ensuring fair compensation for delays.
International Cases
Greenfield v. CFE and Others (2024, LCIA Arbitration)
Citation: LCIA Arbitration, Award issued May 2024
Key Issue: Multi-party disputes and use-or-take provisions.
Summary: The LCIA tribunal resolved a dispute over a coal transportation system in Mexico, ruling that Port Services Fees were a use-or-take provision, ordering CFE to pay USD 31.8 million. Enforcement is ongoing in the U.S. under the Panama Convention.
Significance: Demonstrates arbitration’s efficacy in complex infrastructure disputes with multiple parties.
Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India) (2013)
Citation: PCA Case No. 2011-01
Key Issue: Treaty obligations in hydropower projects.
Summary: The Permanent Court of Arbitration permitted India’s Kishenganga hydroelectric project under the Indus Waters Treaty, with environmental safeguards, addressing Pakistan’s objections.
Significance: Highlights arbitration’s role in resolving transboundary infrastructure disputes.
Philip Morris v. Uruguay (2016, ICSID)
Citation: ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7
Key Issue: Investor-state arbitration in infrastructure-related investments.
Summary: The ICSID tribunal dismissed Philip Morris’s claims against Uruguay’s regulatory measures, upholding the state’s right to regulate public health. Though not a traditional infrastructure case, it involved significant infrastructure investments in manufacturing facilities.
Significance: Reinforces state sovereignty in investor-state disputes, relevant for infrastructure projects with foreign investment.
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina (2005, ICSID)
Citation: ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8
Key Issue: Fair and equitable treatment in infrastructure investments.
Summary: The ICSID tribunal found Argentina liable for breaching fair and equitable treatment obligations under the U.S.-Argentina BIT, impacting CMS’s gas transportation infrastructure investments due to economic measures.
Significance: Sets a precedent for protecting foreign investors in infrastructure projects under international law.
Vodafone International Holdings BV v. India (2016, PCA)
Citation: PCA Case No. 2016-35
Key Issue: Tax disputes in infrastructure investments.
Summary: The PCA tribunal ruled that India’s retrospective tax measures violated fair and equitable treatment under the India-Netherlands BIT, affecting Vodafone’s telecom infrastructure investments.
Significance: Highlights arbitration’s role in protecting infrastructure investments from adverse state actions.
Notes
Indian Dominance: Indian cases are prominent due to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the high volume of infrastructure projects, with frequent Supreme Court and High Court interventions.
International Relevance: International cases address investor-state disputes, treaty obligations, and multi-party complexities, critical for cross-border infrastructure projects.
Key Themes: Recurring issues include contractual interpretation, damages,
