In Short
Infrastructure and PPP practice covers the contracts behind roads, power transmission, urban infrastructure and other public works — EPC agreements, concession agreements, and Public-Private Partnership structures — along with the disputes that inevitably arise around delay, cost overruns and tender awards. S&S Co. advises contractors, developers and authorities across Delhi NCR and Kolkata.
What This Practice Covers
Infrastructure projects in India are typically structured as EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) contracts, or through Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models such as BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) and BOOT (Build-Own-Operate-Transfer) concessions. These contracts govern everything from highway construction to power transmission and urban development, and disputes commonly arise over extension-of-time claims, liquidated damages, cost escalation, and — increasingly — challenges to the tender award process itself.
The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed a posture of judicial restraint in reviewing technical tender evaluations, holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the procuring authority's technical evaluators absent clear illegality — a principle that shapes how tender-award challenges must be framed to have any realistic prospect of success.
Forums We Appear Before
Delhi High Court — infrastructure contract disputes
Calcutta High Court — infrastructure contract disputes
Arbitral tribunals (EPC/concession-linked)
NHAI / NHIDCL dispute resolution boards
Commercial Courts — infrastructure-value disputes
APTEL — power transmission infrastructure
Our Infrastructure & PPP Services
- EPC contract drafting & negotiation — allocating risk on delay, cost escalation, and force majeure.
- Concession agreement advisory — structuring BOT/BOOT arrangements and negotiating concession terms with authorities.
- Tender award challenges — contesting tender outcomes on grounds of illegality, mala fides or procedural violation.
- Extension-of-time & liquidated damages disputes — representing contractors and authorities in EOT claims and LD disputes.
- Dispute resolution board & arbitration representation — for disputes arising during project execution.
- Regulatory approvals advisory — environmental, land acquisition and sector-specific clearances for infrastructure projects.
- Termination & step-in rights — advising on contractor default, termination, and lender step-in scenarios.
Resolving an Infrastructure Contract Dispute
-
Contract Review
We review the EPC or concession agreement's dispute resolution, EOT and LD provisions to map the available remedies.
-
Notice & Claim Documentation
We prepare and submit claim notices supported by delay analysis, correspondence and cost records.
-
Dispute Resolution Board / Conciliation
Many infrastructure contracts require a Dispute Resolution Board or conciliation step before arbitration or litigation.
-
Arbitration or Litigation
We represent the client in arbitration (the default mechanism in most standard-form contracts) or before the Commercial Courts where applicable.
-
Enforcement
We pursue enforcement of the award or decree, including against government-linked counterparties.
Illustrative Scenarios
The following are hypothetical, illustrative scenarios prepared for educational purposes. They are not descriptions of actual client matters, and no outcome is guaranteed in any specific case.
Illustrative Scenario
Contractor Pursuing an Extension-of-Time Claim on a Delayed Noida Infrastructure Project
A contractor on a Noida-area infrastructure project faces liquidated damages for delay that was substantially caused by the authority's delayed site handover. A well-documented EOT claim, supported by contemporaneous correspondence and a critical-path delay analysis, can offset the LD exposure and, in appropriate cases, support a cost-escalation claim.
Illustrative Scenario
Bidder Challenging a Tender Award for a Kolkata Urban Infrastructure Project
An unsuccessful bidder believes a Kolkata civic infrastructure tender was awarded on a flawed technical evaluation. Given the Supreme Court's insistence on judicial restraint in reviewing technical decisions, a viable challenge must be built around clear illegality or procedural violation — not simply disagreement with the evaluators' scoring.
Illustrative Scenario
Concessionaire Facing Termination for Alleged Default on a State Highway Project
A concessionaire on a Delhi NCR highway project receives a termination notice from the authority alleging performance default. Where the underlying cause was regulatory delay in land acquisition or approvals attributable to the authority, a well-documented response — invoking the contract's force majeure and authority-default provisions — can resist termination and instead ground a compensation claim.
Illustrative Scenario
Contractor Disputing Cost Escalation on a Kolkata Civic Infrastructure Project
Steel and cement prices rise sharply during execution of a Kolkata civic infrastructure contract, and the contractor seeks cost escalation beyond the contractually fixed price. Whether escalation is claimable depends heavily on the specific price-variation clause — contracts with a defined escalation formula linked to published indices offer a much stronger claim than fixed-price contracts silent on the point.
Notable Judgments
Supreme Court2026
M/S Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd.
Judicial Restraint Reaffirmed in Reviewing Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure & EPC Tenders
Reviewing an operation-and-maintenance contract dispute over a gas-based power plant, the Supreme Court set aside High Court interference and held that evaluation and award of complex, technically specialised infrastructure contracts falls within the domain of the procuring authority — judicial review is confined to illegality, mala fides or irrationality, not a re-run of the technical merits.
Key Takeaway — Bidders challenging infrastructure and EPC tender outcomes need a genuine illegality or perversity ground — disagreement with the technical evaluation on the merits will not sustain a challenge.
Delhi High CourtFeb 24, 2026
Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services v. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
Delhi High Court Adjudicates Contractor Dispute Arising From a National Highway Infrastructure Contract
The Delhi High Court dealt with a contractual dispute between a works contractor and the National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation, part of a continuing line of Delhi HC rulings on EPC and works-contract disputes arising out of national highway and public infrastructure projects awarded and administered from Delhi.
Key Takeaway — Infrastructure contractors and government corporations executing NHAI/NHIDCL contracts should expect the Delhi High Court and Delhi Commercial Courts to remain the primary forum for works-contract disputes — dispute resolution clauses should be drafted with that forum in mind.
See all Legal Updates for this practice area →
Our Approach to Infrastructure
- Contract and dispute expertise combined — the same team that reviews your EPC contract can defend it in a dispute.
- Realistic read on tender-challenge viability — grounded in current Supreme Court jurisprudence on judicial restraint.
- Dual-city coverage — Delhi NCR and Kolkata infrastructure and civic project experience.
- Founders with 20 years combined experience across commercial litigation, arbitration and regulatory practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I challenge a government tender award in court?
Yes, but courts exercise significant restraint in reviewing technical tender evaluations — a challenge must generally show clear illegality, mala fides, or a fundamental procedural violation rather than simple disagreement with the evaluation.
What is the difference between BOT and BOOT?
In a BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) structure, the developer builds and operates the asset for a concession period before transferring it to the authority. BOOT (Build-Own-Operate-Transfer) additionally vests ownership in the developer during the concession period.
How are disputes typically resolved under EPC contracts?
Most standard-form EPC and concession agreements provide for a Dispute Resolution Board or conciliation step, followed by arbitration as the primary dispute resolution mechanism, with courts retaining supervisory jurisdiction.
Who bears the cost of delay caused by the authority, not the contractor?
Well-drafted EPC and concession agreements allocate delay risk based on cause — where delay is attributable to the authority (e.g. delayed site handover or approvals), the contractor can typically claim an extension of time and, in some cases, cost escalation.