Synopsis

The appellant (concessionaire) challenged an interim order under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act, whereby the Arbitral Tribunal had permitted NHAI to proceed with a Cure Period Notice in respect of one specific default – non-compliance with divestment requirements under Article 34.11 of the Concession Agreement (retention of ₹46.54 crores in escrow or furnishing a bank guarantee). The Tribunal had protected the appellant against three other defaults (overlay obligations, damages, FASTag fee) as those were pending adjudication. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Article 34.11 imposes an independent, non-derogable obligation not linked to the disputed overlay issues, and that the scope of interference under Section 37 is extremely narrow – the Tribunal’s view being plausible, no interference is warranted.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Date of Judgment: 27th April 2026

Citation: ARB.A.(COMM.) 12/2026 & I.A. 1379/2026 (2026:DHC:3544)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 17, 37(2)(b)

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Arb.a.(comm.) no.12 of 2026 & i.a. no.1379 of 2026

M/s nk toll road ltd (petitioner/appellant) vs. National highways authority of india (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble ms. justice mini pushkarna

Reserved on: 17th april, 2026; pronounced on: 27th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 17 (interim measures by arbitral tribunal), section 37(2)(b) (appeal against interim order of arbitral tribunal under section 17)

• Concession agreement between nhaI and concessionaire – article 32.1.1 and 32.1.3 (cure period notice and termination), article 34.11 (divestment/retention of funds in escrow account)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) lies against an interim order where the arbitral tribunal partly allowed a Section 17 application, restraining NHAI from proceeding with certain defaults but permitting it to proceed with a separate, independent contractual obligation (Article 34.11) that was not pending adjudication before the tribunal.

Key legal principles applied:

• Limited scope of interference

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.