Gammon India Ltd. & Anr v. NHAI [Delhi HC, 23 June 2020]

GAMMON INDIA LTD. V. NHAI

Whether it is permissible for a court to rely on the findings of a subsequent award in resolving objections brought against a previous award in a case involving several awards and arbitration proceedings, whether it is permissible for a court to rely on the findings of a subsequent award in resolving objections brought against a previous award.
Whether the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act have explicit provisions or established legal principles to handle the issue of multiple arbitral processes and promote effective dispute resolution?
Whether the Act contains instructions or procedures for dealing with the problem of varied arbitral processes and ensuring that dispute resolution adheres to the terms of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

To avoid multiple arbitrations, parties interested in arbitration pertaining to the same contract should combine their claims into a single arbitration procedure if practicable. This ensures that dispute resolution is more efficient and effective.

A road building contract was signed between Gammon-Atlanta JV, a joint venture of Gammon India Ltd. and Atlanta Ltd. (“contractor”), and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
Disputes emerged during contract execution, prompting the contractor to seek arbitration three times in 2005, 2007, and 2008.
Three independent arbitral tribunals were formed, and three separate arbitral awards were issued, each addressing a different dispute arising from the same contract.

When contesting a previous award (2nd Award), the court considered whether it is permissible to rely on findings from a subsequent award (3rd Award).
To avoid confusion and inefficiency, the court emphasised that multiple arbitrations for disputes arising from the same contract should be avoided.
The court issued suggestions to reduce the number of arbitral hearings, such as raising all claims at the time of arbitration invocation and assigning a single panel to hear connected disputes.
It ruled that findings from a future award could not be used to support a challenge to a previous award.
When submitting Section 11 or Section 34 petitions, the court emphasised the need of specific disclosures regarding ongoing or concluded arbitration processes linked to the same contract.