Friday, March 6, 2026

Latest:

Bombay HC Quashes Deemed Conveyance – Prior Civil Suit Unconditional Withdrawal Bars Fresh Application of Society under Section 11 MOFA.
Section 11 of MOFA – Deemed Conveyance – Postponement till formation of Apex Body of Societies
Bombay HC – Section 11 of MOFA – Deemed Conveyance – Objections of Promoter that Project was not complete and balance FSI is available for future development.
Bombay HC Clarifies Membership Law – Unregistered Transfers Cannot Confer Housing Society Rights and Ownership
Bombay HC – Termination Disputes Outside Section 91 of the Maharashtra Coop Societies Act – Reaffirms Supreme Court Precedent

2026 Arbitration High Court January 2026 Latest Legal

Bombay HC – Informal Minutes cannot Alter BOT Agreement Terms in Infrastructure Contracts

January 18, 2026 legaldeli

The respondent was given contract for construction of a two lane bridge on BOT basis. The bid of the project was won by M/s Ameya Developers with a concession period of 13 years and 7 months.

The State, Ameya and Patwardhan had executed a tripartite agreement. Thereafter, there was announcement of another bridge of shorter link for traffic between Mumbai and Alibag which would have an adverse impact on the traffic envisaged in the bid of Ameya. Therefore, the meeting was held on 18.8.1999. It was agreed that the Government would compensate the shortfall in toll collection if and when and as and when the new bridge was to get operational within the concession period of the project.

Patwardhan made a claim for a rupee-for-rupee compensation for the shortfall in toll collection for the months in which the toll collection fell by more than 20%. This was claimed on the premise that the MOM had changed the bargain between the parties. Any shortfall of more than 20% was claimed as triggering the State’s liability to compensate Patwardhan. This has been unanimously allowed in the Impugned Award and upheld in the Impugned Judgement.

The core issue that falls for consideration is whether the force majeure clause contained in Clause 3.4.19 of the Agreement ceased to be a force majeure clause by reason of the MOM, and whether the parties had instead agreed to change the Project to one guaranteeing a minimum assured return, whereby any loss of toll collection of more than 20% would entail a rupee-for-rupee compensation by the State.

upshot of the analysis and findings in the Impugned Award, upheld in the Impugned Judgement, is that the Agreement envisaged an obligation on the part of the State to compensate Patwardhan for any drop in toll collection of more than 20% in any period, including a part of a month.

Judgment dated 17.1.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Appeal No.33 of 2015 of State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“NDA”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: NDA does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. NDA assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: NDA does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. NDA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about NDA, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between NDA and you.