Dhaya Maju Served India Legal Notice Over Road Project
The firm claims over ₹1,200 crore in compensation citing judicial delays following a terminated road agreement.
Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Do you trust the judicial systems in developing countries to enforce international investment awards fairly?
Dhaya Maju Infrastructure has issued a formal legal notice to India under the India-Malaysia Bilateral Investment Treaty. The company alleges prolonged judicial delays in the enforcement of a 2014 arbitral award concerning a road project in Madhya Pradesh.
Why it matters
This dispute highlights the complexities of enforcing arbitral awards when government entities utilize sequential legal challenges to delay payment. The outcome could test the effectiveness of bilateral investment treaties in protecting foreign investors from prolonged judicial roadblocks.
The claim involves a total valuation exceeding ₹1,200 crore. The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation previously initiated 19 sequential legal proceedings to challenge the original arbitral award.
The players
Dhaya Maju Infrastructure
This is a Malaysian infrastructure company that established a special purpose vehicle for road development projects in India.
Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation
This is the state-level authority responsible for the road project and the termination of the concession agreement.
LexCounsel
This is the law firm that served the formal notice on behalf of the infrastructure company.
The details
Dhaya Maju Infrastructure served the notice through the law firm LexCounsel, initiating a required settlement discussion phase under the bilateral treaty. The dispute centers on the termination of a concession agreement for a project managed by the firm's special purpose vehicle, Jabalpur Corridor (India) Private Limited.
Timeline
August 2014: An arbitral award was issued in favor of the special purpose vehicle.
September 2026: Dhaya Maju issued the legal notice against India.
Political Context
Opponents of such claims often argue that bilateral investment treaties infringe upon the sovereign right of a state to regulate its own judicial system. Critics of foreign investors note that these treaties are frequently used to bypass domestic courts, potentially undermining national legal autonomy.
The legal dispute highlights the financial risks foreign firms face when infrastructure projects fail to adhere to original concession agreements. Such cases often result in prolonged uncertainty for investors and may influence future foreign direct investment into regional projects.
The takeaway
Large-scale infrastructure disputes illustrate the difficulty of reconciling long-term concession contracts with state-level judicial processes. Investors should be aware that treaty-based claims are a last resort that follows years of local legal maneuvering.
Further reading
For broader trends in international legal disputes, see the latest updates on Law.
Source note: This article includes information reported by BW Legal World.
Live Poll
Do you trust the judicial systems in developing countries to enforce international investment awards fairly?
