DEMYSTIFYING SECTION 42: A LANDMARK WIN FOR NHAI IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

• Date: 06-May-2025
• Post in: Arbitration

Landmark Arbitration Ruling: NHAI's Victory Clarifies Section 42 Jurisdiction
A significant legal triumph representing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) before the Delhi High Court in Hariram & Ors. v. NHAI [O.M.P. (COMM) 86/2021].
The Section 42 Jurisdiction Question

This case centered on a critical interpretation of Section 42 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - a provision that determines which court retains exclusive jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings. The petitioners argued that their previously filed writ petition in the Delhi High Court should qualify as an "earlier application" under Section 42, thereby anchoring jurisdiction with Delhi courts for all subsequent proceedings. The Court's Definitive Interpretation In a clear and authoritative judgment delivered on April 4, 2025, Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri accepted our arguments and ruled:

"A writ petition cannot be construed as an 'earlier application' under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to decide jurisdiction as the very nature of a writ petition is to challenge an administrative action or a legal decision, not to initiate arbitration proceedings."

The Court elaborated that Section 42 specifically refers to an "application made in a Court with respect to an arbitration agreement," which implies an initial application to commence or regulate arbitration, rather than a challenge to an existing decision.
Legal Implications for Arbitration Practice
This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the scope and application of Section 42:

It establishes that not all previous proceedings before a court automatically trigger Section 42's jurisdictional lock-in
It reinforces that Section 42 applications must specifically relate to arbitration agreements and proceedings under Part I of the Act
It prevents forum shopping by ensuring challenges to arbitral awards are heard by courts with genuine territorial connection to the dispute

Practical Impact
For infrastructure projects spanning multiple jurisdictions, this ruling creates predictability in determining which court has supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings. By clarifying Section 42's application, the judgment promotes efficiency in dispute resolution and reduces jurisdictional conflicts.