Split verdict in JITF-NTPC matter leaves dispute unresolved
Delhi High Court’s recent split verdict in the JITF-NTPC dispute has left unresolved the dispute involving an arbitral award of nearly Rs 1,889 crore, involving Public Money.
On September 2, 2026, a Delhi High Court Division Bench delivered a split verdict in the long-running dispute between State-owned power major NTPC and infrastructure company JITF. However, the 1:1 split left the matter unresolved.
Justice C Hari Shankar allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order and restored the 2019 Arbitral Award “in its entirety.”
However, Justice Om Prakash Shukla disagreed on four claims - 1, 3, 3A and 5A - which together account for the bulk of the Rs 1,889 crore award in favour of JITF in January 2019.
Justice Shukla upheld the Single Judge’s order primarily on the grounds of the express contractual provisions, holding that arbitrators, being creatures of the contract, could not rewrite the contract while awarding the claims in favour of JITF.
The dispute dates to a 2008 plan to transport coal from the high seas to NTPC’s Farakka plant through the inland waterways system. Under a 2011 Tripartite Agreement, JITF was responsible for developing the unloading infrastructure, NTPC had a contractual commitment relating to 3 MMTPA for seven years, while IWAI was responsible for maintaining the stipulated water depth.
NTPC’s challenge included issues relating to JITF’s poor performance, extension of the Commercial Operation Date (COD), as per the explicit contractual compensation provisions, and the award of Rs 1,108 crore under Claim 5A towards termination-related damages, without submission of any proof of loss.
Both judges considered the statutory framework governing judicial interference with arbitral awards, including the principles under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence including Associate Builders, Saw Pipes and Ssangyong Engineering. However, they differed on the application of these principles to the Tribunal’s findings.
The difference of opinion now goes to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Third Judge or Larger Bench, leaving the final determination on the disputed claims subject to further judicial proceedings.
