Delhi High Court Constitutes Tribunal For D P Jain-NHAI Dispute, Allows Change In SAROD Procedure
The Delhi High Court on 10 September constituted a three-member Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes between D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) arising from the termination of a Concession Agreement for construction of a section of the Bangalore-Chennai Expressway.
Justice Sachin Datta constituted the Tribunal after both parties jointly agreed to depart from the arbitration procedure prescribed under their agreement, which required disputes to be referred to the Society for Affordable Resolution of Disputes (SAROD). The Bench observed:
“The stipulation in an arbitration agreement as to the institution under whose aegis the arbitration is to be conducted, and as to the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal is to be constituted, is a matter of contract between the parties and is always open to variation by mutual consent. Where such consent is arrived at in the course of hearing and is recorded in the order of the Court, the arbitration agreement stands modified pro tanto.”
The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement dated 4 February 2022 for construction of the four-lane Bangalore-Chennai Expressway from Arakkonam to Kancheepuram in Tamil Nadu.
D P Jain claimed that NHAI's failure to provide free fly ash along with transportation forced it to procure borrow earth at an additional cost. The Dispute Resolution Board rejected the claim, following which the company approached the Madras High Court. The writ petition was dismissed in October 2025, prompting D P Jain to file an appeal before a Division Bench.
On 20 August 2026, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal, declared the project eligible for free fly ash with transportation and referred D P Jain's monetary claim, including its claim of Rs. 180.16 crore, to the Dispute Resolution Board/Arbitral Tribunal for quantification.
NHAI subsequently declined D P Jain's requests to implement the judgment and terminated the Concession Agreement on 1 September 2026. D P Jain then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection against the termination and encashment of its bank guarantees, among other reliefs.
The arbitration clause required unresolved disputes to be referred to SAROD, with the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal also governed by the SAROD Rules.
Given the urgency of the dispute, the parties jointly requested the Delhi High Court to constitute the Tribunal instead of following the SAROD procedure. They informed the Bench that they had identified their respective nominee arbitrators.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shaf Broadcast (P) Ltd. v. Doordarshan, where a sole arbitrator was appointed with the parties' consent despite their agreement providing for a three-member tribunal. It appointed Justice (Retd.) S. Ravindra Bhat as Presiding Arbitrator, Justice (Retd.) Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy as NHAI's nominee and Justice (Retd.) J.K. Maheshwari as D P Jain's nominee.
It further directed that D P Jain's Section 9 petition seeking interim relief be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and decided by the newly constituted Tribunal.
Appearances for Petitioner (D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited): Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, with Advocates Salim Ambar Inamdar, Vikas Mishra, Kartik Nagarkatti, Mukesh Choudhary, Dr. Alok Lakhanpal, Gautam Sharma, Sanchit Gawri, Krishna Dev Yadav, Jahnvi Sandhu, Mridul Tiwari, Nilay Kaushal, Keshav Sharma, Lalitendra Gulani, Madhur Deo, Kaushik Saha and Dhananjay Mittal.
Appearances for Respondent No. 1 (NHAI): Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, with Advocates Nishant Awana, Tanupriya Gupta, Nitya Sharma, Ekta Kundu, Apoorva Singh, Khushi Sharma and Aadyaa Katiyar.
Appearances for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Advocates Saran Suri, Namit Suri, Pepakayala Geetanjali, Tanya Sharma and Aditi Sharma.