A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered a split verdict on September 2, 2026, on the validity of an arbitral award passed in January 2019 in favour of Jindal ITF Limited (JITF) against NTPC Limited. The tribunal had awarded a total sum of ₹1,889.32 crore to JITF on account of alleged delays, deviations, and shortfalls in the minimum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) of coal under a 2011 tripartite agreement involving NTPC, the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), and JITF for transportation of imported coal to NTPC’s Farakka Thermal Power Plant.
The award included ₹424.08 crore under Claim 1 for delays and deviations attributable to NTPC, ₹158.50 crore under Claim 3 and ₹197.81 crore under Claim 3A for shortfalls in MGQ, and additional amounts related to the illegality of NTPC’s termination of the agreement, which the tribunal treated as compensation for future MGQ payable under the contract.
A single judge of the High Court had previously set aside the tribunal’s findings on these claims. The matter then came before the division bench, which heard arguments from senior advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Jayant Mehta representing JITF, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with advocates Bani Dixit, Adarsh Tripathi, Vikram Singh Baid and Ajitesh Garg representing NTPC.
Justice C Hari Shankar upheld the arbitral award in its entirety, holding that the single judge had exceeded the limited scope of interference permissible under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He concluded that the tribunal’s findings on Claims 1, 3, 3A, and 5A were sustainable in law and that there was no patent illegality warranting judicial intervention.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla, however, dissented on these claims. He agreed with the single judge that the arbitral tribunal had committed patent illegality in its reasoning and conclusions, and therefore held that the award on these specific claims could not be sustained. His dissent focused on the tribunal’s alleged failure to properly apply contractual terms and legal principles governing quantification of damages and MGQ obligations.
Due to the divergence of opinion, the bench framed the point of difference for placement before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The order stated: ‘Accordingly, the point of difference is thus framed, for being placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being placed before a learned Third Judge or a Larger Bench, as he would deem appropriate: “Whether the decision of the learned Single Judge, with respect to Claims 1, 3 and 3A and 5A is sustainable in law?”’
The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for constitution of a third judge or a larger bench to deliver a binding verdict on the subsisting disagreement. Until such time, the arbitral award remains neither fully enforced nor wholly set aside, leaving the parties in a state of legal uncertainty regarding the ₹1,889.32 crore liability.
The case underscores the stringent standards of judicial review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly the distinction between errors of law or fact (which do not warrant interference) and patent illegality (which may justify setting aside an award). The split verdict highlights the complexity of assessing long-term infrastructure contracts involving performance guarantees, quantification of damages, and the limits of judicial deference to arbitral tribunals.