Arbitration Regarding Defective Expansion Joints In Highway Flyovers

01 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

🛣️ Arbitration in Disputes Over Defective Expansion Joints in Highway Flyover Contracts

❓ What Are Expansion Joints and Why They Cause Disputes

Expansion joints are critical components in bridges and flyovers that allow for thermal expansion, contraction, and movement without causing structural damage.
Defects in expansion joints can lead to:

Cracks or potholes on carriageways

Noise and vibration

Structural distress to adjacent elements

Safety hazards

Such defects often trigger contractual claims between the highway authority (owner) and the contractor for deficient design, construction, or failure to remedy defects during the Defect Liability Period (DLP) specified in the contract.

Because these disputes are highly technical and require interpretation of complex contract clauses, most highway EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) contracts provide for arbitration as the final forum for resolving disputes.

🧩 A. Why Arbitration in Highway Flyover Defect Disputes?

Key Advantages of Arbitration

✔ Parties can choose technical arbitrators or tribunal members with engineering expertise.
✔ Proceedings are confidential and usually faster than court litigation.
✔ Awards are enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in India).
✔ Issue‑specific, narrow findings can be made by specialist tribunals.

Typical Contractual Disputes

Whether defects (like faulty expansion joints) are within DLP

Whether defects resulted from poor workmanship, design flaw, or materials

Whether contractor is liable for rectification costs and damages

Whether the authority properly issued notices under the contract

Whether arbitration was validly invoked

📍 B. How Arbitration Proceedings Unfold in Defect Cases

Notice of Arbitration:
Party alleging defective expansion joints serves a formal notice invoking the arbitration clause.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Typically two party‑appointed arbitrators + one presiding technical arbitrator.

Preliminary Challenges:
Respondent may challenge jurisdiction if contractual pre‑conditions (like conciliation) weren’t met.

Evidence and Experts:
Parties submit engineering reports, site surveys, test results, and defect lists.

Findings on Contract Interpretation:
Tribunal interprets the expansion joint specifications, tolerances, and defect standards.

Award:
Tribunal decides liability, rectification obligations, and quantum of damages or costs.

Challenge/Enforcement:
Awards may be challenged under Section 34 (limited grounds) or enforced by courts.

📚 C. Relevant Case Law (Infrastructure Arbitration & Defects)

While there aren’t many published decisions exclusively on defective expansion joints, the following cases establish key legal principles applicable to arbitration of highway/flyover defect disputes:

1. National Highways Authority of India v. M/s Progressive‑MVR (Joint Venture) (2018)

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India

Relevance: Clarified interpretation of infrastructure contract clauses and limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act.

Principle: Infrastructure disputes (including claims arising from defects or contract interpretation) are for arbitration with limited judicial review.

2. National Highway Authority of India v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

Forum: High Court (challenge to award)

Relevance: A contractor claimed defective works, delay in issuance of defect liability certification, and contested tribunal findings on defects.

Principle: Tribunal must evaluate completion, defect lists, and failure to remedy within contract terms; courts limited to narrow review on procedural grounds.

3. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2024)

Forum: Delhi High Court (Section 11 appointment case)

Relevance: Court refused the application of specific arbitration rules where parties could not comply; ordered sole arbitrator appointment under the Act.

Principle: Arbitration must be commenced correctly per the contract; technical disputes like defects hinge on proper constitution of tribunal.

4. You One Engineering and Construction v. NHAI (2006)

Forum: Arbitration clause interpretation

Relevance: Contract provided for arbitration with technical appointment mechanisms; illustrates how complex construction disputes (including defects) are to be arbitrated.

Principle: Dispute resolution clauses in EPC contracts dictate how defect disputes are referred to arbitration.

5. Delhi High Court — Settlement Agreement as Binding Award (ARSS Infrastructure)

Forum: Delhi HC (2025)

Relevance: When parties reach a settlement in contract arbitration context (including infrastructure EPC contracts), settlement can be treated as binding arbitral award, potentially precluding further arbitration.

Principle: In defective work disputes, a negotiated settlement may be as enforceable as a tribunal award.

6. National Highways Authority of India vs GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd (2023)

Forum: High Court (challenge to arbitral award)

Relevance: Dispute over project obligations including operations and maintenance; tribunal’s findings on scope of contractor’s obligations upheld.

Principle: The scope of work and contractual obligations are critical in infrastructure arbitration — relevant when determining liability for defects like expansion joints.

🧠 D. Key Legal Principles in Defect Arbitration

1) Contract is King

The tribunal’s job is to interpret the contract terms — especially defect standards, timelines, and remedies.

2) Expert Evidence is Critical

Technical expert reports (often from independent engineers) form the backbone of defect determination.

3) Defect Liability Period (DLP)

Whether a defect (like in an expansion joint) arises during DLP often determines liability.

4) Tribunal’s Domain vs. Court’s Domain

Arbitration award merits are seldom interfered with; courts only entertain procedural challenges (e.g., jurisdiction, natural justice, public policy).

5) Settlement as Final Resolution

If parties settle during arbitration, settlement agreements can be recorded as binding awards.

🧩 E. Sample Contractual Defect Issue (Hypothetical Scenario)

A contractor installs an expansion joint that fails within six months. Owner:

Issues defect notice under DLP

Contractor disputes defect cause (claims normal wear)

Parties refer the dispute to arbitration

Tribunal appoints civil/structural experts to inspect

Tribunal interprets specifications and expert findings

Tribunal awards remediation cost + damages if contractor liable

📌 F. Practical Takeaways

✅ Arbitration is standard for resolving complex technical disputes in highway infrastructure.
✅ Contract wording, DLP, and defect definitions are central.
✅ Evidence and experts often decide outcomes.
✅ Courts support arbitration and only intervene on narrow grounds.
✅ Settlement can be as powerful as an arbitral award.