Sign in
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. NHAI; 2026 INSC 76 - S.34 Arbitration Act - BOCW Act- Cess Act

CaseCiter

• 3 min read
Read Judgment In LawLens
Note

You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - If an arbitral tribunal’s view is found to be a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternate view is possible. Construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms is a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine. Unless the same is found to be one that no fair-minded or reasonable person would arrive at, it cannot be interfered with. If there are two plausible interpretations of the terms of a contract, then no fault can be found if the arbitrator accepts one such interpretation as against the other. To be in conflict with the public policy of India, the award must contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law, which makes it narrower in its application. (Para 59)

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 - Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 - Cess Act along with the Rules framed thereunder became operative in the whole of the NCT of Delhi from January, 2002 - The BOCW Act and the Cess Act were brought into force on the dates notified therein but could not have been given effect to till Welfare Boards were constituted under Section 18 of the BOCW Act. Notwithstanding the dates from which these two enactments were brought into force, the BOCW Act and the Cess Act remained dormant, in fact, owing to the failure of the appropriate Governments in taking necessary measures to bring the provisions thereof into actual effect -The Cess Act is complementary to the BOCW Act and was enacted for augmenting the resources of the Welfare Boards, constituted under Section 18 of the BOCW Act. Therefore, in the absence of such Welfare Boards, levy and collection of cess under the Cess Act did not arise, given the scheme and structure of the two Acts and the Rules - constitution of Welfare Boards was essential and was a condition precedent for levy and collection of the cess in relation to the BOCW Act and the Cess Act. The registration of workers or providing of welfare measures to them, however, are not pre-conditions for the levy and collection of such cess. (Para 59)

Case Info


Case Details

  • Case name: Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India; with C.A. Nos. 5301, 5302, 5304, 5412, 5416 of 2025.
  • Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 76.
  • Coram: Sanjay Kumar, J; Alok Aradhe, J.
  • Judgment date: January 20, 2026.

Caselaws and Citations

  • Dewan Chand Builders and Contractors v. Union of India, 2012 1 SCC 101.
  • Builders Association of India v. Union of India, 2007 139 DLT 578 (DB).
  • A. Prabhakara Reddy & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 1 SCC 600.
  • Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 7 SCC 1.
  • Associate Builders v. DDA, 2015 3 SCC 49.
  • ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., 2003 5 SCC 705.
  • ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd., 2014 9 SCC 263.
  • National Highways Authority of India v. ITD Cementation India Ltd., 2015 14 SCC 21.
  • UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 4 SCC 116.
  • Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, 2019 15 SCC 131.
  • Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., 2019 20 SCC 127.
  • MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., 2019 4 SCC 163.
  • Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd., 2010 11 SCC 296.
  • OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 2 SCC 417.
  • National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v. Union of India, 2009 3 SCC 269; 2018 5 SCC 607.
  • High Court decisions referenced:
    • Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3603.
    • BBEL-MIPL JV v. NHAI, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 1022.
    • Coromandel Prestcrete (P) Ltd. v. State of A.P., 2008 SCC OnLine AP 355.
    • M.E.S. Builders’ Association of India v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 2919.
    • Sikkim Urja Ltd. v. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Sikkim 50.

Statutes/Laws Referred

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 28(1)(a), 34, 37; 2015/2016 amendments).
  • Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.
  • Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996.
  • Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998.
  • Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Rules, 1998.
  • Various State Rules and notifications under BOCW Act (Delhi Rules 2002; Jharkhand Rules 2006 notified 2007; Gujarat Rules 2003; Orissa Rules 2002; UP Rules/Circular 2009–2010).
  • Constitution of India, Article 142 (referenced in Gayatri Balasamy for modification powers).
Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. NHAI; 2026 INSC 76 - S.34 Arbitration Act - BOCW Act- Cess Act
Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. NHAI; 2026 INSC 76 - S.34 Arbitration Act - BOCW Act- Cess Act.pdf
581 KB
download-circle