LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

National Highways Authority of India v. M/S NCC-KNR (JV)

Interlocutory Application · Neutral citation not assigned (Interlocutory Application Nos. 4 & 5 in Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2013)Decided 19 Jan 2016
Interlocutory Application Nos. 4 & 5 in Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2013
Justice Dipak Misra · Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Background

This is a sequel to Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2013, which the Supreme Court had already decided on 24.4.2015, setting aside an arbitral award on "Claim No. 8" in favour of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). At the interim stage, NHAI had deposited about Rs. 70.65 lakh, which the respondent (NCC-KNR JV) had withdrawn in December 2012 on furnishing a bank guarantee. After the 2015 judgment went against the respondent, the respondent repaid the principal amount, but NHAI filed fresh applications (I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2015) seeking interest on that amount for the roughly three years the respondent had held and used it.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that the underlying Arbitral Tribunal award (dated 9.1.2012) had itself fixed interest at 12% per annum on amounts awarded under various claims, and that NHAI's claim concerned only Claim No. 8, which had been set aside in NHAI's favour. The Court held that since the respondent's entitlement to the withdrawn amount had been negated by the 2015 judgment, fairness required the respondent to pay back the amount together with interest at the same 12% rate that applied under the original award. It accordingly directed the respondent to pay 12% annual interest on Rs. 70,65,039 from the date of withdrawal until the date it was actually repaid, within six weeks, and disposed of both interlocutory applications.

Lesson Learnt

When a party has benefited from money paid out under an interim arbitral/court order that is later reversed, courts will generally require that money to be returned with interest at the same rate fixed in the original award: simply returning the principal is not treated as sufficient once the underlying entitlement has been negated.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Arbitration & Commercial Law

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Modern Asset v. KNK Constructions Private Limited

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause survives termination of the underlying contract (the "doctrine of separability") and that, at the Section 11 reference stage, courts only check for the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement: deeper questions about the effect of the resolution plan are for the arbitrator. It confirmed that while the IBC's "clean slate" principle extinguishes creditors' claims against the insolvent company once a resolution plan is approved, it does not extinguish the claims the company itself (through its SRA) may have against its own debtors, since the Resolution Professional had not raised a counter-claim on KNK's behalf during the insolvency process. However, noting the inequity of letting KNK recover fresh dues on the same contract while Modern Asset's own claim had been wiped out to 0.72 %, and following its own recent precedent in Ujaas Energy, the Court modified the High Court's order: Modern Asset may raise its extinguished claim in the arbitration solely as a set-off against any amount it is found to owe KNK, but cannot use it to claim any fresh recovery.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

S And P Infrastructure Developers (Pvt) Ltd vs. National Highways Authority of India

The Court held that the Joint Registrar's order overlooked an earlier ruling of this Court (M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India) establishing that an instrument must be stamped at or before execution, with any delay attracting penalty, not just a top-up payment. Since the Joint Registrar's order was not in line with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court set it aside. The decree holder's counsel then sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile once the stamp duty issue was properly resolved, which the Court granted.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the Licence Agreement, the JVA, and the MoU each covered different subject matter (technology licensing, the joint venture company, and logistics services respectively), so the JVA and MoU's own arbitration clauses, providing for arbitration in Mumbai under Indian law, governed the disputes arising under them, not the Licence Agreement's Korea clause. Both agreements also contained "entire agreement" clauses showing they were meant to stand independently. The Court restricted itself to the limited inquiry required at the reference stage under Section 11(6-A), whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists, and left deeper questions, including whether a non-signatory subsidiary (RBIPL) could be bound, to the arbitrator. It allowed the petitions and appointed a former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt Ltd vs. Connect and Heal Primary Care Pvt. Ltd.

Since the dispute was resolved, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition rather than continue with it. The Court granted leave and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lifespan Wellness Private Limited

The Court reiterated that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11, it need only check whether an arbitration agreement exists on its face, not decide the merits of the dispute. Finding the arbitration clause undisputed, the Court appointed a named advocate as sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), leaving all other objections (including arbitrability and jurisdiction) to be decided by the arbitrator.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S. Keshari Multi Functional Complex Pvt Ltd vs. Rail Land Development Authority

Because the awarded amount was already deposited pursuant to the earlier stay order, the Court held nothing further survived for consideration in the present enforcement petition. It disposed of the petition, giving the decree holder liberty to refile later after paying the proper stamp duty (and any penalty) under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case