In a recent decision dated February 11, 2026, the High Court of Delhi sided with MAK Controls and Systems Private Limited, dismissing a request by the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) about a claim for damages.
This case is about an agreement signed on March 6, 2002, between NRDC and MAK Controls to develop a product called 'Mak World Traker' over twelve years. MAK Controls was supposed to pay Rs. 24 Lakhs every year for five years once the product started selling commercially.
MAK Controls finished the project in 2007 but did not start selling the product. So, they reported zero annual royalty payments. NRDC sent a notice on June 24, 2019, but MAK Controls replied on July 2, 2019, saying they didn't owe any royalty payments.
“The zero annual royalty payments were reported because commercial production never started.”
NRDC's claim for Rs. 1,20,00,000 in royalties was turned down based on the agreement's terms. Also, their claim for damages because the technology wasn't transferred was rejected due to the time limit on making such claims.
“The arbitrator correctly decided that the claim for damages is too late because the issue started in 2011.”
Justice Avneesh Jhingan pointed out that the agreement was clear. The duty to transfer technology came up when MAK Controls didn't start selling the product within four years after finishing the project in 2007. The court found no reason to change the arbitrator's decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The decision is not flawed by obvious mistakes, unreasonable decisions, or conflicts with public policy, so the petition is dismissed.”
The court dismissed NRDC's petition, confirming that MAK Controls was not liable for the claimed royalties or damages. This decision highlights the need to stick to contract timelines and the limits on when you can ask for damages.
