Recently, the Delhi High Court restrained the authorities from initiating any coercive action against the concessionaire of the Delhi-Noida-Delhi (DND) Flyway over a demand of nearly ₹100 crore in alleged advertisement dues, pending arbitration proceedings. The Court, while hearing a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, observed that “prima facie, the petitioner has a right to display advertisements and the balance of convenience lies in its favour.”
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose after the outdoor advertisement department of the respondent issued a letter demanding nearly ₹100 crore from the petitioner, a special purpose vehicle established to develop and operate the DND Flyway under a concession agreement. The petitioner, which was originally permitted to display advertisements on the Noida side of the flyway at a specified rate, had been paying the revised fee under protest after the rate was increased once in 2011. However, in January 2025, the respondent unilaterally hiked the advertising licence fee retrospectively from ₹125 to ₹457 per sq. ft. per month, effective from April 2024, without issuing any prior notice. The impugned letter demanded payment of the outstanding amount, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking interim protection.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that despite the Apex Court’s decision restricting its right to collect toll from commuters, the concessionaire retains the contractual right to display advertisements under the concession agreement and lease deed. It was contended that the retrospective fee hike was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and was issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The counsel further argued that there was no contractual provision empowering the respondent to unilaterally revise the advertisement charges and that no show-cause notice was served prior to the threefold escalation.
It was also submitted that any dispute over advertisement charges was a matter for the arbitral tribunal to decide, as both the concession agreement and lease deed contain arbitration clauses governing such disputes.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner’s right to display advertisements stemmed directly from the concession agreement and was not affected by the previous judgments that curtailed toll collection. Observing the absence of prior notice or due process before the retrospective hike, the Court emphasised that the unilateral demand raised serious legal concerns that warranted adjudication through arbitration.
In its order, the Court remarked, “Prima facie, it seems that the petitioner has a right to display advertisements and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. In case interim orders are not granted, it may cause irreparable damage and loss to the petitioner which cannot be compensated in terms of money.”
The Court also took note of the arbitration clauses in both the concession agreement and the lease deed, reiterating that the determination of advertisement charges is a matter for the arbitral tribunal.
The decision of the Court:
Considering the submissions and the potential financial prejudice to the petitioner, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent and granted four weeks to file a reply. Importantly, it directed that “no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter” until the next hearing date. The matter is now listed for further consideration on January 16, 2026.
Case Title: Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Case No.: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 403/2025
Coram: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rajiv Nayar (Senior Advocate), Raunak Dhillon, Madhavi Khanna, Nihaad Dewan, Akshit Singla
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Aviral Saxena, Abhinav Sharma
Picture Source :
