| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. |
| Introduction | This case involves a contractual dispute under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding rates for excess geogrid quantities in a highway construction project awarded by NHAI to the appellant joint venture. |
| Factual Background | The contract for a four-lane highway project was awarded in 2002. A dispute arose when quantities of geogrid material exceeded the BOQ. NHAI contested paying BOQ rates for excess quantities, leading to arbitration. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Clauses 51 and 52 of the General and Particular Conditions of the Contract (COPA). |
| Analysis | The DRB and Arbitral Tribunal found no instructed variation or design change and upheld payment at BOQ rates for excess quantities. The Division Bench disagreed, but the Supreme Court restored the arbitral award. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court ruled that the excess quantity of geogrid was not a variation requiring renegotiation. It upheld the arbitral award and emphasized limited judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. |
| Current Scenario | The arbitral award favoring Somdatt Builders has been restored. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in interfering with arbitration awards and clarifies the scope of Clauses 51 and 52 in construction contracts. |
CASE SUMMARY – The case pertains to a dispute between Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC (JV) and NHAI over the interpretation of Clauses 51 and 52 in a highway construction contract. NHAI contested paying BOQ rates for excess geogrid quantities, asserting that it qualified as a variation under the contract. The DRB and Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of the contractor, stating that there was no instructed variation. The Division Bench overturned this, but the Supreme Court restored the arbitral award, emphasizing limited judicial interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and reinforcing the contractual framework for uninstructed variations.
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
