Expert Board Report Without Express Consent Not Executable: Delhi High Court Holds Technical Recommendations Cannot Be Enforced as Decree or Arbitral Award

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs M/S Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited (DGSCL)

Citation: EX.P. 23/2017

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Judgment: 1st July, 2026

Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Execution of Orders, Arbitration Law, Contract Law

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation seeking enforcement of a Consent Order and a Board's Report that determined service charges payable for integrated toll tax collection. The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding where parties agreed to have an expert Board determine service charges. The Board recommended service charges at 7%, and the Corporation sought to execute this recommendation as if it were a decree or arbitral award. The Court held that neither the Consent Order nor the Board's Report constituted an executable decree, arbitral award, or other enforceable instrument. The Board's Report was merely a technical recommendation, not a binding adjudication. The Court distinguished cases where mediated settlements were enforced, as the present matter involved no settlement or quantification of liability by the parties. The Execution Petition was dismissed.

3. Relevant Facts

Background of the Dispute

• The Judgment Debtor (DGSCL) entered into a Concession Agreement with NHAI for conversion of NH-8 to six/eight lanes on a BOT basis.

• A State Support Agreement was entered into between DGSCL, GNCTD, State of Haryana, and NHAI.

• The Rajokari Border became operational on 23.01.2008, and toll tax collection commenced.

• DGSCL collected integrated toll taxes, including toll taxes to be collected by the Decree Holder (SDMC), the State of Haryana, and service charges.

The Memorandum of Understanding

• Since the parties could not agree on service charges, an MoU dated 15.05.2008 was executed.

• The MoU stipulated that service charges would be decided by a mutually agreed Government Agency, and such recommendation would be final and binding.

• M/s RITES Ltd. was appointed and fixed service charges at 11.28%.

• Subsequently, parties agreed to 11% service charges for the period 16.05.2011 to 16.05.2014.

Dispute and Section 9 Petition

• Disputes arose regarding service charges after 16.05.2011.

• DGSCL filed a Section 9 petition seeking protection against interference in toll tax collection.

• This Court granted interim protection.

• With consent of parties, this Court passed orders dated 25.04.2012, 20.02.20

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