Relief Beyond Arbitration’s Scope Cannot Sustain an Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in National Highways Authority of India v. The Louis Berger Group Inc. JV with M/s. COWI A/S (O.M.P. (COMM) 351/2023), decided on August 3, 2026, partly allowed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated May 4, 2023. The Hon’ble Court held that an arbitral tribunal cannot grant relief beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration or rely upon material obtained from one party without affording the other party an opportunity to respond.

The dispute arose from a consultancy contract awarded by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) to The Louis Berger Group Inc. in Joint Venture (“JV”) with M/s. COWI A/S for the design, construction and maintenance of a cable-stayed bridge across the Chambal River in Kota, Rajasthan. Following the collapse of the partly constructed bridge in December 2009, NHAI extended the project and continued to avail the respondent’s consultancy services. Disputes subsequently arose regarding payment for the extended construction and Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) periods.

The respondent invoked arbitration seeking payment for the extended construction period and O&M services. The Hon’ble Tribunal allowed Claim No. 1 for ₹53,938,987/- and USD 1,274,174.17 and partly allowed Claim No. 2 for O&M charges, awarding ₹51,682,887/- and USD 60,769/- along with interest. Claim No. 3 towards arbitration costs was also allowed.

NHAI challenged the award on the grounds that the Hon’ble Tribunal had failed to determine responsibility for the bridge collapse, granted O&M charges beyond the respondent’s prayer and relied upon financial information concerning an O&M expert which had not been put to NHAI. It was also contended that the claims were barred by limitation.

The Hon’ble Court held that the issue of responsibility for the bridge collapse had not been taken to its logical conclusion by NHAI since the consultancy contract was neither terminated nor were penalties imposed. The Hon’ble Tribunal was therefore entitled to adjudicate the respondent’s claims under the original contractual terms. The Hon’ble Court further held that the challenge based on limitation was unsustainable, as the cause of action arose when NHAI finally rejected the respondent’s claim on April 21, 2020, and arbitration was invoked on January 26, 2021.

However, the Hon’ble Court found that the Hon’ble Tribunal had granted O&M charges for a period extending beyond the date of the award, including amounts for services yet to be rendered. This was beyond the prayer and the scope of submission to arbitration under Section 34(2)(a)(iv). The Hon’ble Court also held that the Hon’ble Tribunal had relied upon the financial implications of engaging the O&M expert, which had been obtained from the respondent without giving NHAI an opportunity to respond. This violated Section 18 of the Act and constituted a ground under Section 34(2)(a)(iii).

Relying on Ssangyong Engineering & Constructions Co. Ltd. v. NHAI and Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., the Hon’ble Court held that the invalid portion of an award may be severed from the valid portion where the two are capable of being separated. Accordingly, Claim No. 2 was set aside while the remaining portions of the award were left undisturbed. The petition was therefore partly allowed.