The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that recommendations made by a Dispute Review Board (DRB) under a contract constitute an arbitral award and can be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as a decree. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia.
The Court also clarified that the limitation period for enforcing such an award starts from the date the DRB renders its decision, not from when a court recognizes it as an arbitral award.
“There is no provision in the A&C Act, which precludes a party to arbitration from instituting proceedings for enforcement of the award unless the same is recognized as an arbitral award in any other proceedings,” the Court stated.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Slams Madhya Pradesh Govt For Withholding Retiral Benefits Of Deceased IAS Officer
The case involved Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium (JHC), which had entered into an agreement with SJVN Limited on 24 June 1993 to execute civil works for the Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Electric Project. A dispute arose over reimbursement for additional costs incurred due to the use of DG sets for power generation.
As per the modified Clause 67 of the contract's General Conditions, disputes were to be referred to a Dispute Review Board. The clause clearly stated that the DRB’s decision would be final and binding if the dispute value was below ₹5 crores.
Read also:- J&K High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA: Says K.A. Najeeb Ratio Not Applicable as Trial Not Yet 5 Years
In this case, the DRB ruled in favor of JHC and directed SJVN to pay ₹1.83 crore along with 10% interest. However, SJVN refused to comply. JHC then filed an enforcement petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking to treat the DRB’s recommendation as an enforceable arbitral award.
The Single Judge earlier dismissed the enforcement petition, stating it was barred by limitation since it was filed 12 years after the DRB decision. On appeal, the Division Bench evaluated whether the DRB’s decision qualifies as an arbitral award and if enforcement could proceed.
The Court referred to the precedent in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited v. M/s Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, where the Himachal Pradesh High Court had ruled that DRB decisions involving claims under ₹5 crores must be treated as arbitral awards, and the only remedy available to challenge such awards is through an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Flags SOP Ignorance as Key Cause Behind Flood of Runaway Couple Petitions
Reinforcing this view, the Delhi High Court concluded that the DRB recommendation in this matter did qualify as an arbitral award under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, it was enforceable under Section 36.
“In terms of Section 36 of the A&C Act, the arbitral award is required to be enforced as a decree,” the Court held.
Despite this legal position, the Court found that JHC had filed the enforcement petition after 12 years, exceeding the permissible limitation period. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited
Case Number: EFA(OS)(COMM) 15/2024, CM Nos. 14977/2025 & 33334/2025
