Delhi High Court Affirms Immediate Enforceability of DRB Awards: Limitation Period Runs From the Date of Decision

Introduction

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/s. SJVN Limited (2025 DHC 4460-DB) has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the enforceability of Dispute Review Board (DRB) determinations rendered under Clause 67 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) where the individual claim is below ₹5 crores.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the recommendations of the DRB, which are final and binding for low-value claims, constitute an “arbitral award” from the moment they are pronounced, or whether they require a judicial declaration before being capable of enforcement. The Court also addressed the consequential question: when does the twelve-year limitation period for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 begin to run?

The appellant, M/s. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium (JHC), sought to overturn a Single-Judge order that had rejected its execution petition as time-barred. The petition sought enforcement of DRB recommendations dated 21.12.2006, 04.05.2007 and 27.06.2007 for ₹1.83 crores plus interest.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench dismissed JHC’s appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and affirmed the Single-Judge’s finding that:

The DRB recommendations were arbitral awards from the day they were issued.
No interim court order ever restrained their enforcement.
Consequently, the twelve-year limitation period for execution began in 2007 and expired long before JHC filed its enforcement petition on 16.12.2021.
The pendency of SJVN’s civil suits challenging the DRB awards did not suspend or “eclipse” JHC’s right to enforce the award nor extend limitation under Section 15 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. Nathpa Jhakri JV (HP HC, 07.06.2006)
Held that DRB determinations under the identical Clause 67 are arbitral awards; suits to challenge them are barred and the only remedy is a Section 34 application. This ruling laid the foundation that DRB decisions are awards ab initio.
SJVN Ltd. v. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium (Delhi HC, 27.08.2018) and the ensuing RFA(OS) 15/2019 (DB, 18.02.2019)
Delhi High Court applied the Himachal Pradesh precedent to dismiss SJVN’s suits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reiterating that DRB decisions are arbitral awards.

These judgments conclusively shaped the legal landscape before the present appeal—establishing that DRB recommendations under Clause 67 have the force of arbitral awards without needing confirmation by any court.

2. Legal Reasoning of the Division Bench

Nature of DRB Recommendations
The Bench reaffirmed that Clause 67 creates a binding adjudicatory mechanism amounting to arbitration for sub-₹5 crore claims. Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) defines an “arbitral award” to include “an interim award”. Once the DRB issues its decision it satisfies this definition.
Immediate Enforceability under Section 36 A&C Act
Section 36 equates an arbitral award with a court decree for execution purposes. No statutory requirement exists for a preliminary declaration that it is an award; enforceability is automatic.
Computation of Limitation
Execution of an award is governed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act—twelve years from the date when the “ decree” becomes enforceable. Because DRB awards were enforceable immediately, the clock started in 2007.
Section 15 Limitation Act Inapplicable
Section 15(1) excludes time during which a party is “prosecuting” another civil proceeding in “good faith” where the execution proceeding “could not have been instituted” due to a stay or injunction. As no stay was ever granted in SJVN’s suits, the execution petition was not legally barred; hence no exclusion.
Consistent Litigating Stance
JHC’s own applications under Order VII Rule 11 asserted that the DRB decision was already an arbitral award. Having succeeded on that stance, JHC could not now argue that the award crystallised only after the court’s declaration—application of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

3. Impact on Future Jurisprudence and Practice

Clarity on DRB Awards Across India The decision cements, at least within the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, that DRB rulings that are final and binding under the contract are arbitral awards enforceable without any further formality.
Limitation Awareness Parties must vigilantly track the twelve-year limitation window from the award date. Mere pendency of collateral suits—whether by the award-debtor or the award-holder—does not extend or suspend limitation unless accompanied by a formal stay order.
Deterrence of Dilatory Tactics Award-debtors can no longer rely on filing civil suits to stall enforcement; award-holders likewise cannot delay on the pretext that such suits cloud enforceability.
Commercial Certainty The ruling enhances certainty in fast-track dispute schemes (e.g., infrastructure contracts) by ensuring that determinations meant to be final remain so.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dispute Review Board (DRB): A panel of experts contractually appointed to adjudicate disputes speedily during project execution. Their decisions can be either advisory or binding depending on the contract.
Arbitral Award: A binding decision by an arbitral tribunal resolving all or part of a dispute. Under Section 36 A&C Act it is enforced like a civil court decree.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: A procedure allowing a court to reject a plaint at the threshold if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.
Section 15(1) Limitation Act: Suspends the limitation period for initiating a proceeding while another proceeding, stayed by a court order, is pending.
Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act: Provides for direct appeals to a Division Bench from orders of Commercial Division judges in certain circumstances.
Article 136 Limitation Act: Prescribes twelve years for executing a decree or order of any civil court.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has unequivocally held that DRB decisions under Clause 67 for claims below ₹5 crores are arbitral awards immediately enforceable under Section 36 of the A&C Act. The limitation period for execution starts on the date of the DRB decision, unaffected by collateral civil suits unless an explicit stay prevents enforcement.

This judgment advances commercial efficacy in large infrastructure projects by foreclosing opportunistic litigation aimed at delaying payment and by compelling award-holders to act within statutory timelines. Future contracting parties should heed the decision’s twin lessons: frame clear multi-tier clauses and, once a DRB or similar body renders its ruling, pursue enforcement without delay.