Delhi District Court
New Delhi Muncipal Council vs M/S Raj Builders on 2 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
OMP (COMM) 242/2019
New Delhi Municipal Council
Having its office at Palika Kendra,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
.........Petitioner
Versus
M/s Raj Builders
A Registered Partnership Firm
through its Partner Sh. Sandeep Tyagi
Having its office at B-2/6-A,
Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035
.......Respondent
Date of institution : 20.12.2019
Date of reserving judgment : 12.02.2025
Date of pronouncement : 02.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner for setting
aside the Arbitral Award dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner invited
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 1 of 35
tender for execution and completion of the work named and style
as ‘Construction of 17 Numbers Type-III flats at Palike Nilay
R.K. Puram Marg SH, (a) providing and fixing M.S. Wire mess
window shutter shade over existing windows and (b) providing
and laying vitrified tiles in kitchen, bathroom and Varandah
plastering with wire mesh for rectification of cracks.” The
respondent submitted its tender for the work which was accepted
and the work was awarded to the respondent vide work order
dated 26.11.2009 with value of the work as Rs. 34,51,081/- which
was followed by work order dated 26.11.2009. The stipulated
period of completion was four months to be reckoned from 10 th
day of the work order or from the date of the first handing over of
the site, whichever is later. The stipulated date of start of work
was 05.12.2009 and the date of completion was 04.04.2010. The
agreement No. EE/(BM-1)/AB/2009-10 dated 24.12.2009 was
executed between the parties. The work could not be completed
within the stipulated period and was completed only on
04.11.2011. The final bill was paid to the respondent on
03.01.2012 within two months and well within six months period
from the date of completion as per clause 9 of the agreement. The
final bill was paid by withholding 10% of the tendered value as
per clause 5 of the agreement on account of the case of the
respondent for extension of time being pending at that time as the
respondent did not submit the duly filled upon performa for EOT
to the petitioner which the respondent has to submit to the
petitioner for approval of extension of time and instead of
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 2 of 35
submitting the same, the respondent kept on writing letters to the
petitioner which were of no use though the same were replied by
the petitioner vide letter dated 31.05.2013 but the respondent did
not submit the duly filled upon performa for EOT. After a lapse
of about two years, the case for EOT was processed and
compensation @ 10% of tendered amount was levied by the
competent authority as per Clause 2 of the agreement. The
respondent was informed of the same vide letter dated
25.06.2014.
3. The respondent filed statement of claim and additional statement
of claim and the petitioner filed reply to the initial statement of
claim, reply to the additional statement of claim and counter
claims. The respondent filed reply to the counter claim and
rejoinder to the reply to its initial statement of claim and also to
the additional statement of claim. The parties made admission
and denial of the documents and after completion of the
pleadings, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator framed issues in the present
case. Both the parties filed affidavit in evidence of the witnesses
and both the parties did not cross examine the witnesses of each
other and closed their respective evidence. Thereafter, the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator passed the impugned award dated 20.09.2019
whereby the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has allowed the part of the
claims made by the respondent and rejected the counter claim of
the petitioner. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator granted the following relief
in favour of the respondent in the impugned award:-
(i) Against claim no.1 of the respondent, The Ld. Sole
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 3 of 35
Arbitrator has allowed claim of Rs. 3,45,108/- with interest @
12% per annum from 22.12.2012 till the date of payment.
(ii) Against claim no.3, Ld. Sole Arbitrator allowed the claim
to the extent of Rs. 2,04,000/- as damages on account of payment
of salary to the Graduate Engineer during the extended
contractual period without interest.
(iii) Against claim no.4, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator allowed the
claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 1,27,700/- from
22.11.2012 with interest @ 12% per annum till realization as the
profit due to the losses suffered by the respondent in respect of
work not allowed to be done by the respondent.
(iv) Against the claim no.6, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator allowed cost
of Arbitration proceedings to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- in
favour of the respondent.
(v) The Ld. Sole Arbitrator also rejected the Counter claims of
the petitioner in the impugned Award dated 20.09.2019.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the impugned award
dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is erroneous,
contrary to law and facts and the documentary evidence on record
and is liable to be set aside.
5. Feeling aggrieved from the findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator,
the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the
grounds such as the impugned award passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator is contrary to the specific terms of the contract; Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the tender was floated
by the petitioner for the use of 50cm x 50cm vitrified tiles in the
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 4 of 35
17 flats and the bid was submitted by the respondent for such
tiles and the bid of the respondent was accepted by the petitioner
and once the respondent submitted the bid for the same, it was
the duty of the respondent to ensure the availability of such tiles
in the market even before submitting the bid for the tender and
hence writing letters and letter dated 01.01.2010 are nothing but
the lame excuse on the part of the respondent for not starting the
work as per agreement and the documents on the face of it show
that the contractor was responsible for delay, were ignored and
without any proof on record, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator erroneously
held that the petitioner was responsible for delay in execution of
work; as per the agreement, the work was to be started from
05.12.2009 and the respondent wrote the above letters and
delivered to the petitioner on 23.12.2009 and 04.01.2010 but the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator found that these letters were of no avail and
were not written bonafidely; The Ld. Sole Arbitrator did not
appreciate the Status report and has wrongly held that Status
report leaves no doubt that the occupants of the flats where the
work was to be carried out by the respondent, created hindrance
and the flats were not available for execution of work and that the
delay in execution was attributable to the petitioner inasmuch as
no details have been given as to on what date even after the status
report, the respondent tried to execute the work in which flat and
was not allowed to execute and complete the work in which flats
and it was the conduct of the petitioner itself that has led to no-
completion of the work within the stipulated period and also for
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 5 of 35
the delay of more than 10 months in completion of work; Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has failed to apply the provisions of Section 55 of
the Indian Contract Act as the time was the essence of the
contract and the respondent failed to adhere the timeline as per
contract and therefore, at a later stage EOT was sanctioned with
levy of compensation as per provisions of the contract but the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has erroneously held that the time was not the
essence of the contract in hand which is contrary to clause 5 of
the contract; Ld. Sole Arbitrator has failed to appreciate various
clauses of the contract including clause 2 of the agreement which
says about the compensation for delay; Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
erroneously not considered the Hindrance Register; Interest @
12% per annum as granted by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is too high
to be accepted as the rate of interest on which the loan is being
disbursed by various banks is 8 to 9% per annum and the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has not considered that there is no provision in the
contract to claim interest; Further there is no provision in the
agreement which entitles the respondent to claim damages in case
the work is delayed; Ld. Sole Arbitrator has erroneously allowed
10% profit on the unexecuted work and the view taken by the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator is contrary to the provision of clause 13 of the
agreement; Ld. Sole Arbitrator has erroneously granted the cost
of the arbitration proceedings while rejecting the counter claim of
the petitioner. On these premise, the instant petition has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of arbitral award
dated 20.09.2019 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in the present
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 6 of 35
case.
6. Reply to the present petition has been filed by the respondent
wherein it has been averred that the grounds of objection petition
are beyond the ambit and scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and none of the grounds for
challenging the award fall under any of the provisions of Section
34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
Arbitrator after considering the rival contentions of the parties
and documents filed and evidence adducted or produced before
him after considering and interpreting the terms of the contract in
the facts and circumstances of the case, has come to a finding of
facts for the reasons given based on the record and evidence
available before it. Such interpretation of the contract, view of the
documents and evidence taken by the Arbitral Tribunal is
plausible view, even if not the only possible view, is final and
binding in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and this court is not sitting in appeal
over the award of the Arbitrator and would not go into the merits
of the case and would not appreciate the evidence and documents
before the Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal has given reasons for
his findings and given his thought process for accepting or
rejecting the contention or claim of any party and the court in
objections to the award under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not go into reasonableness and
or sufficiency of reason as the Arbitrators were/are not supposed
to write a detailed judgments like that of the court. The law with
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 7 of 35
regard to limited scope of the court under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 has been settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Associate Builders Vs. DDA
reported in 2014 (4) Arb. LR 307 (SC) and other judgments and
keeping in view the facts and evidence before the Arbitral
Tribunal the award is final and binding and the court while
hearing the objections to arbitral award will not set aside even if
the court by a process of its reasoning could come to different
conclusion when the view of the Arbitral Tribunal based on
pleadings and evidence before him is a possible view. It has been
further averred that the none of the objections are sustainable and
objections have been filed to delay the payments of awarded
amounts. On merits, in sum and substance, the respondent has
denied the averments of the petitioner made in the present
petition. On these premises, the respondent has prayed for the
dismissal of the instant petition.
7. I have heard Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
and Sh. Vivemanand and Sh. Abhishek Semwal, Ld. Counsels for
the respondent.
8. I have examined the impugned Award dated 20.09.2019 in
question, arbitration proceedings and also given due
consideration to the facts and pleadings of the case, written
submissions along with citations filed by the parties as well
submissions put forth by the respective Ld. Counsel for the
parties and the relevant legal position.
9. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 8 of 35
is against the facts as well as against the law and has been passed
by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator without application of mind and the
award is a non-speaking award. It has been further argued that the
impugned award is based on surmises and conjectures and it has
been passed without considering the documents on record and is
against the public policy. It has been further argued that the
impugned award suffers of various irregularities, violation of
principles of natural justice and against the public policy. On
these premise, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
impugned award be set aside.
10.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued
that the objections are not maintainable as the award has been
passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator after considering the material
on record and is a reasoned award and it does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality as alleged by the petitioner. He therefore,
argued that the objections are without any merit and are liable to
be dismissed.
11.Before deciding the validity of the impugned Award, it is relevant
to observe that the scope of inquiry in Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 proceedings is restricted
to consideration whether any one of the grounds mentioned in
Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
exists for setting aside the Award. The scope of the interference
by the court under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been time and again restricted in
catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Superior Courts and it has
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 9 of 35
been held that in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, the re-appreciation of the facts,
evidence or interpretation of the terms of contract is not
permissible. What is permissible is, if there is a patent illegality,
apparent error on the face of the record, perversity in the Award
or misconduct by the Ld. Arbitrator.
12.Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads
as under:-
“34.Application for setting aside arbitral award-(1)Recourse to a
court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application
for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and
sub-section (3).
(2)An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if-
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that-
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the
parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the
law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of
the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was
otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or
not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it
contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration;
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can
be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the
arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to
arbitration may be set aside; or
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 10 of 35
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure
was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such
agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which
the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in
accordance with this Part; or
(b) the court finds that-
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation 1 – For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an
award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,– (i) the
making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption
or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or (ii) it is in
contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is
in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2.– For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether
there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law
shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.
(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than
international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the
Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of
an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three
months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that
application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been
made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been
disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 11 of 35
by sufficient cause from making the application within the said
period of three months it may entertain the application within a
further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”
13.Normally, the general principles are that Arbitrator is a Judge of
the choice of the parties and his decision, unless there is an error
apparent on the face of the award which makes it unsustainable,
is not to be set aside even if the court as a court of law would
come to a different conclusion on the same facts. The court
cannot reappraise the evidence and it is not open to the court to
sit in appeal over the conclusion of the arbitrator. It is not open to
the court to set aside a finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrator
and only grounds on which the award can be cancelled are those
mentioned in the Arbitration Act. Where the arbitrator assigns
cogent grounds and sufficient reasons and no error of law or
misconduct is cited, the award will not call for interference by the
court in exercise of the power vested in it. Where the arbitrator is
a qualified technical person and expert, who is competent to
make assessment by taking into consideration the technical
aspects of the matter, the court would generally not interfere with
the award passed by the arbitrator.
14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Associate
Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 has
held that the interference with an arbitral award is permissible
only when the findings of the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious
or perverse or when conscience of the Court is shocked or when
illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. It is held
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 12 of 35
that once it is found that the arbitrator’s approach is neither
arbitrary nor capricious, no interference is called for on facts. The
arbitrator is ultimately a master of the quantity and quality of
evidence while drawing the arbitral award. Patent illegality must
go to the root of the matter and cannot be of trivial nature.
15.It was further held as under:-
“33. …when a court is applying the ‘public policy’ test to an
arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and
consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by
the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator
is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be
relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award…. Once it is found
that the arbitrators approach is not arbitrary or capricious, then he is
the last word on facts..”
16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National
Highways Authority of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 677 has held
that under Section 34 (2A) of the Act, a decision which is
perverse while no longer being a ground for challenge under
“public policy of India”, would certainly amount to a patent
illegality appearing on the face of the award. A finding based on
the documents taken behind the back of the parties by the
arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence
inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the
parties and therefore would also have to be characterized as
perverse. It is held that a finding based on no evidence at all or an
award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 13 of 35
would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of
patent illegality.
17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also cited with approval
the dictum laid down in P. R. Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P)
Ltd Vs. B. H. H. Securities (P) Ltd, [(2012) 1 SCC 594 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 342)], wherein it has been held as under:-
21. A Court does not sit in appeal over the award of an Arbitral
Tribunal by reassessing or re-appreciating the evidence. An award
can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in Section 34
(2) of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal has examined the facts and held
that both the second respondent and the appellant are liable ……
Therefore, in the absence of any ground under Section 34 (2) of the
Act, it is not possible to re-examine the facts to find out whether a
different decision can be arrived at.”
18.It was further held in Associate Builder (supra) as under:-
“…… Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an
arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a
way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or
reasonable person could do…..”
19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Atlanta
Limited Thr. Its Managing Director Vs. Union of India, CIVIL
APPEAL No. 1533 of 2017 decided on 18.01.2022, has held as
under:-
“19. It is also a well-settled principle of law that challenge cannot
be laid to the Award only on the ground that the Arbitrator has drawn
his own conclusion or failed to appreciate the relevant facts. Nor can
the Court substitute its own view on the conclusion of law or facts as
against those drawn by the Arbitrator, as if it is sitting in appeal. ThisOMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 14 of 35
aspect has been highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction
Co. Ltd. And Another, where it has been observed thus:
“26. The arbitrator is the final arbiter for the dispute between the
parties and it is not open to challenge the award on the ground that
the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or has failed to
appreciate the facts. In Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala
[Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala, (1989) 2 SCC 38] it has
been held by this Court that there is a distinction between disputes
as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the disputes as to in
what way that jurisdiction should be exercised. There may be a
conflict as to the power of the arbitrator to grant a particular
remedy. One has to determine the distinction between an error
within the jurisdiction and an error in excess of the jurisdiction.
Court cannot substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of
law or fact to come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted
contrary to the bargain between the parties. Whether a particular
amount was liable to be paid is a decision within the competency
of the arbitrator. By purporting to construe the contract the court
cannot take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary
to the contract and as such beyond jurisdiction. If on a view taken
of a contract, the decision of the arbitrator on certain amounts
awarded is a possible view though perhaps not the only correct
view, the award cannot be examined by the court. Where the
reasons have been given by the arbitrator in making the award
the court cannot examine the reasonableness of the reasons.
If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum
must be conceded the power of appraisement of evidence. The
arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of
evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task
of being a Judge on the evidence before the arbitrator.”
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 15 of 35
20. As long as the arbitrator has taken a possible view, which
may be a plausible view, simply because a different view from that
taken in the award, is possible based on the same evidence, would also
not be a ground to interfere in the award. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v.
Union of India [Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 9
SCC 449] , this Court has held as follows : (SCC p. 475, para 36)
―36. Be it noted that by reason of a long catena of cases, it is
now a well-settled principle of law that reappraisal of evidence
by the court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of
power by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to
proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. In the event
of there being no reasons in the award, the question of
interference of the court would not arise at all. In the event,
however, there are reasons the interference would still be not
available within the jurisdiction of the court unless of course,
there exists a total perversity in the award or the judgment is
based on a wrong proposition of law. In the event however two
views are possible on a question of law as well, the court would
not be justified in interfering with the award.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
22. In a recent ruling in NTPC [NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services (P)
Ltd., (2021) 19 SCC 694 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 498] , decided by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court, drawing strength from the decision in
Kwality Mfg. Corpn. [Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing
Corpn., (2009) 5 SCC 142 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 406] , it has been held
thus : (NTPC case [NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services (P) Ltd., (2021)
19 SCC 694 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 498] , SCC para 13)
13. From the above pronouncements, and from a catena of other
judgments of this Court, it is clear that for the objector/appellant
in order to succeed in their challenge against an arbitral award,
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 16 of 35
they must show that the award of the arbitrator suffered from
perversity or an error of law or that the arbitrator has otherwise
misconducted himself. Merely showing that there is another
reasonable interpretation or possible view on the basis of the
material on the record is insufficient to allow for the interference
by the Court(see State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions [State of
U.P. v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396] ; Ravindra
Kumar Gupta & Co. v. Union of India [Ravindra Kumar Gupta &
Co. v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 409 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ)
130] and Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
[Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., (2018) 16
SCC 219 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 426] ).
20.It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court when called
upon to decide the objection raised by a party against an arbitral
award is limited as expressly indicated in the Act. The Court has
no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examined the correctness of
award on merit with reference to the material produced before the
Arbitrator. It cannot sit in appeal overviews of the Arbitrator by
re-examining and re-assessing the material. It is equally settled
that approach of the Court has to support the award, if it is
reasonably possible, rather to declare it illegal. It is not
permissible to re-appreciate the evidence or to go into the
questions of quality & quantity of evidence. It two views are
possible, the Court even, if inclined to take different view from
that by the Arbitrator is not entitled to substitute his views over
that of Arbitrator but at the same time, it being an award, which
sets out reasons yet this Court can set aside the award on finding
error apparent on the face of the award or if there is an error of
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 17 of 35
law on the face of the award.
21.In the present case, Ld. Sole Arbitrator vide order dated
18.12.2017 framed following issues:-
(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for the claims as raised in the
original claim and additional statement of claim?
(ii) Whether the respondent is entitled for the counter claim as raised by
them?
(iii) Relief.
22.While deciding issue no.(i), the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has allowed
claim of the respondent for Rs. 3,45,108/- with interest @ 12%
per annum from 22.12.2012 till the date of payment; The Ld.
Sole Arbitrator also allowed the claim of the respondent for Rs.
Rs. 2,04,000/- as damages on account of payment of salary to the
Graduate Engineer during the extended contractual period
without interest; The Ld. Sole Arbitrator also allowed the claim
of the respondent for Rs. 1,27,700/- as the profit which would
have been earned by the respondent if the contractor would have
been allowed to carry out the unexecuted contractual work of the
value of about Rs. 12,77,000/- while observing that if the
respondent would have been paid the full value of the contract, he
would have enjoyed the fruits of the profit and since the part of
the profit of the total value of the contract was deprived,
therefore, the respondent suffered losses on that account and is
entitled for interest and thus, an amount of Rs. 1,27,700/- is
allowed with interest @ 12% per annum from 22.11.2012 as
demanded in the additional statement of claim and the said
interest is liable to be paid till the realization of the amount.
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 18 of 35
23.It is admitted case of the parties that the contractual work was to
be completed in a period of four months starting from 05.12.2009
and the completion date was 04.04.2010. Admittedly, the work
could not commence on due date i.e. 05.12.2009 and the
respondent wrote a letter Ex. C-2A to the Executive Engineer of
the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that vitrified tiles of
size 50×50 cm as provided in the contract, were not manufactured
by the companies and requested the petitioner to allow the
contract to provide and fixing 660×660 mm vitrified tiles which
were available in the market, samples of which were already
given to the Executive Engineer while further informing that the
respondent would not charge any extra claim due to the change of
the size in the tiles. The respondent again wrote letter dated
01.01.2010 to the Executive Engineer of the petitioner and
brought to the knowledge of the petitioner that the work was
standstill due to want of decision on the part of the petitioner for
providing and fixing vitrified tiles in all the plinth area as
demanded by the occupants of the flats and the petitioner was
told that the points mentioned in letter dated 01.01.2010 had to be
approved and accepted by the department of the petitioner and
without decision on them, the work would be delayed. In reply to
the letters sent by the respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner
replied that no approval of the department of the petitioner was
required for execution of the work and there was no delay on the
part of the petitioner on account of any decision/approval as on
date and that the work should be completed within the stipulated
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 19 of 35
time. The respondent had admitted the receipt of the letter of the
petitioner but denied the contents of the document but the
respondent, as observed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, did not place
on file any written document to claim that the facts mentioned in
the letter of Executive Engineer dated 14.01.2010 were
contradicted by it. Admittedly the work was not started till
14.01.2010 by the respondent.
24.The case of the respondent is that that the vitrified tiles of size
50×50 cm as provided in the contract, were not manufactured but
before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator it was not the case of the
respondent that the tiles of the size as mentioned in the agreement
were not more manufactured by the companies after the contract
was assigned to the respondent and the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
observed the same in the impugned award. The observations of
the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in this regard as reproduced as under:-
“37……While furnishing the tender and in any case before the work
was to be started , the claimant should have found from the market if
the requisite tiles were available or not. The non-availability of the
tiles was brought to the notice of the respondent on 23.12.2009
whereas the work was to be commenced on 05.12.2009. Further, the
demand of the occupants of the flat for providing vitrified tiles in all
the area: extra items of FRP Chhajja and about the size of the M.S.
Angle were brought to the notice of the respondent vide letter dated
01.01.2010. Thus, the work did not commence almost for the first
one and a half month from the date of the start of the work.
38. The respondent wrote letter dated 04.01.2010, Ex. R-1 and
informed the claimant that site hand already been handed over to the
contractor for execution of the work and the E.E. also inspected theOMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 20 of 35
site along with contractor to sort out various issues pointed out for
execution of work. However, in spite of the this, the work was not
started even after a lapse of one month from the stipulated date to
start the work.
39. The respondent, vide letter dated 14.01.2020 clarified that
tiles would be provided only in the area as mentioned in the contract.
The size of the vitrified tiles was sorted out earlier. Other demands as
mentioned by the claimant in letter dated 01.01.2010 were not found
having any merit and were declined. The claimant was asked to start
the work and to finish the assigned job within stipulated time……
However, in spite of this, the work had not been started even after a
lapse of more than one month from the stipulated date to start the
work.
40. The claimant also raised the issue of non-supply/irregular
supply of the cement in its letter dated 12.08.2020: Ex. C-3. The
respondent had denied the receipt of the letter. The cement was to be
supplied by the respondent at a fixed rate and the amount was to be
adjusted in the bills. The respondent has denied the allegations of
non supply or irregular supply of cement. It is pertinent to note that
cement was required for fixation of tiles and for work of Chajja etc.
Since the claimant did not commence the job for more than one
month of due date, therefore, its case of non or irregular supply of
the cement as raised in the letter Ex. C-3 after about 8 months of the
due date of the commencement of the work, is devoid of any merit.
41. The above facts leave no doubt that after the work was
assigned to the claimant vide letter dated 26.11.2009, the claimant
did not commence the work from due date i.e. 05.12.2009. The work
must have been commenced only after 14.01.2010 i.e. the date of the
letter of the respondent Ex. R-2. The initial delay in the start of the
work was due to the conduct of the claimantOMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 21 of 35
42. There is nothing on the record to suggest that claimant could
not have completed the work within the stipulated period even after
it was commenced from or after 14.01.2010. The work continued for
a longer period and ultimately on 04.11.2011, the respondent treated
the work as complete and mentioned the same in office note Ex.
R-5.”
25.Ld. Sole Arbitrator has also dealt with the question as to why the
whole work could not be completed and also that what led to its
non-completion within the stipulated period.
26.As per the case of the respondent, the occupants of the flats either
did not permit the workers to do the job or the flats were made
available as per convenience of the occupants. In this regard, the
Assistant Engineer of the petitioner wrote an office note dated
20.10.2010 which also includes the status report of the work
which clarified as to which particulars allottee of the flat for the
period from February 2010 to October 2010, did not allow the
work to be carried out or work was allowed to be done partially.
27.While dealing with this question, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
observed that document Ex. C4A, which has also been admitted
by the petitioner, leaves no doubt that the occupants of the flats
where the work was to be carried out by the claimant, created
hindrance. Though the petitioner has placed on record the
photocopy of its hindrance register Ex. R-3 dated 04.10.2011
wherein it has been mentioned that there was no hindrance but
the status report and the report of the Assistant Engineer of the
petitioner Ex. C4A has falsified the entry in the hindrance register
as has been observed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The Ld. Sole
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 22 of 35
Arbitrator has observed as under:-
“…….Since, the respondent failed to make available the site to the
contractor to complete the work during the stipulated period or the
period after the due date of completion, therefore, the main reason
for non completion of the work was non availability of the site to the
contractor to complete the work. It was the responsibility of the
respondent to provide the site to the contractor. Since, it failed to do
so, therefore, the conduct of the respondent itself led to non
completion of the work within the stipulated period and also the
period thereafter when the contractor continued to do wok without
any objection from the side of the respondent.”
28.The above findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator show that the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has dealt extensively with the objection raised by
the petitioner and the above findings rendered by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator cannot be interfered in these proceedings as the
appreciation of evidence and construction of documents was
within the jurisdiction of the arbitration.
29.With respect to the question whether the time was the essence or
not, Ld. Sole Arbitrator has relied upon Section 55 of the Indian
Contract Act and observed as under:-
48. The time was not the essence of the contract in hand. It is
clear from the facts of the case that even after the stipulated period of
the agreement, the respondent did not raise any objection and
allowed the claimant to continue to do the work…
49. In the present case, the NDMC allowed the contractor to
continue with the work after the expiry of stipulated period and that
too without any objection. It is interesting to note that EOT was
allowed and it was informed to the claimant only vide letter dated
25.06.2014 Ex. C-10. By that time, the claimant had already filedOMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 23 of 35
arbitration petition for appointment of arbitrator. The claimant had
written letters to the E.E., S.E. and also the Chief Engineer (Ex. C-6
to C-8) prior to writing letter to the Chairperson of the NDMC on
26.07.2013 Ex. C-9 with the request to invoke Clause 25 of the
contract to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. It is not
the case of the respondent that it had given any notice to the claimant
before levy of compensation was imposed or that any hearing was
given by the competent authority to the claimant.
50. I find that time was not the essence of the contract and more
particularly because EOT was sanctioned by the authority though
with imposition of levy……
30.In this regard, Ld. Sole Arbitrator observed that Clause 2 of the
Contract speaks about the essence of the timeline as mentioned in
the contract or in the extended time and as per Clause 2 of the
Contract, if the contractor fails to maintain the required progress
in terms of clause 5 or to complete the work in the extended time,
the NDMC would be entitled for compensation for such breach.
The Ld. Sole Arbitrator has also noted that the main cause of
delay as recorded by the officials of the petitioner in Ex. C4-A, is
non availability of the site to the contractor to complete the work
and the petitioner allowed the contractor to continue with the job
even after the expiry of the stipulated period and it was done
without raising any objection and observed that under the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent was at fault
for not completing the work in the extended time and therefore, it
was not justified on the part of the petitioner to levy
compensation while granting EOT. Though the petitioner has
averred that the respondent did not submit the request for EOT in
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 24 of 35
prescribed performa in spite of the request made for that purpose
however, as has been noted by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator that the
respondent has placed on record the letter dated 15.12.2011
addressed to E.E. with the request to issue EOT performa and
noting below the said letter confirms that the department of the
petitioner had issued the performa on 16.12.2011 and found that
EOT was sanctioned by the petitioner but there was no mention
that filled in perform was not submitted by the contractor and it
caused the levy of compensation and with or without the filled in
performa, the petitioner has allowed EOT and thus, there was no
occasion for the petitioner to levy the compensation while
permitting EOT after more than two and half year of the
recording of completion of the contractual work and found that
levy of compensation of Rs. 3,45,108/- is not justified.
31.With respect to the No Due Certificate, Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
observed that the observations of the accountant and the letter
dated 31.05.2013 Ex. R-7 of E.E. of the petitioner, leave no doubt
that Ex. R-6 was not a ‘No Due Certificate’ in respect of the
withheld amount and it was meant only for the release of the
security amount and infact the petitioner itself never treated Ex.
R-6 as ‘No Due Certificate’ of the respondent in respect of the
withheld amount of Rs. 3,45,108/- and observed that the
respondent is entitled for the said amount as was withheld by the
respondent while granting EOT.
32.Perusal of the impugned award shows that no fault, either factual
or legal can be found to be the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 25 of 35
Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator has considered the
objections and determined the amount as it deems reasonable.
The view/interpretation of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is neither
impossible nor perverse but is plausible view and cannot be set
aside.
33.While dealing the claim of losses due to escalation of increased
labour rates during the prolongation beyond stipulated period
amount to Rs.2,31,300.51, Ld. Sole Arbitrator has interpreted
Clause 10 (C) of the Contract Agreement which speaks about
payment on account of increase in Prices/Wages due to Statutory
Order(s) that if after submission of tender, wages of labour
increases as a direct result of the coming into force of any fresh
law, or statutory rule or order beyond the prices/wages prevailing
at the time of the last stipulated date of receipt of tenders
including extensions, if any, for the work during contract period
including the justified period extended under the provisions of
clause 5 of the contract without any action under Clause 2, the
amount of the contract shall accordingly be varied but limited to
increase in wages prevailing at the time of stipulated date of
compensation or as prevailing for the period under consideration,
whichever is less. As per Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act,
the respondent was bound to establish that it has suffered
damages due to payment of increase wages and it actually paid
the increased wages to the workers. However, as has been
observed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, the respondent has not place
on record any document to support its contention that it actually
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 26 of 35
paid the increased wages to the workers and also the amount of
such increased payment and hence observed that the respondent
has failed to establish its case by taking help of Section 10 (C) of
the Contract or de hors as damages and the damages, said to have
been suffered by the respondent, has not been established and
hence the Ld. Sole Arbitrator did not grant damages on account
of payment due to increase in wages.
34.As far as the claim on account of loss of staff, overheads and
reduced profitability due to prolongation of the contract period by
19 months, amounting to Rs. 5,70,000/-, Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
dealt with Clause 36 of the Contract Agreement and observed that
the respondent has not placed on the file any document to
confirm that it complied with the provisions of Clause 36 of the
Agreement inasmuch as CW has not testified before the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator that such compliance was made and also neither the
persons in whose favour cash vouchers were issued have been
examined nor the respondent has placed on the file ledger etc. to
confirm the payment and thus, the cash vouchers so relied upon
the respondent, were not considered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
However, the respondent vide letter dated 12.08.2010 informed
the petitioner that one graduate Engineer Mr. Varun Kumar was
available at the site during the course of execution of the work
and this letter has been admitted by the petitioner. The Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has observed that the said Engineer must have been
paid the salary by the respondent and considered the rate of
wages at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month to an Engineer as
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 27 of 35
genuine. Though the respondent has claimed the salary of the
Engineer for the extended period of 19 months of the contract
however, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has observed that the respondent
had to keep the Engineer for 17 months only as the petitioner
failed to make available the site to the respondent to carry out the
contractual work and granted damages to the respondent at the
rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month for 17 months which comes to Rs.
2,04,000/-. While dealing with the provisions of Section 73 of the
Indian Contract Act, the rest of the claim of the respondent
towards damages/loss suffered by the respondent was not
considered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator as the respondent failed to
establish the same as no document was placed on record by the
respondent.
35.It can be seen from the above findings that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator
has considered all the objections and returned the findings
pursuant to the formula provided for determining the amount
payable on the basis of rate of wages. There is nothing ex facie
perverse about the above findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and it
cannot be said that the view taken by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is a
plausible view, so as to warrants interference under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appreciation of
the evidence and construction of the documents is within the
jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal.
36.As far as the loss of profit on balance unexecuted value of the
work amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/- is concerned, in the present
case, the awarded value of the work was Rs. 34,51,000/- and the
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 28 of 35
gross value of the work which the petitioner allowed the
respondent to execute till 04.11.2011 was of about Rs.
21,74,000/-. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding this question
has observed that the respondent was always ready and willing to
execute and complete the awarded value of the work but the
petitioner failed to make available the site to execute the balance
work and unilaterally declared the work as complete on
04.11.2011 and consequently, due to the fault and failure on the
part of the petitioner, the respondent was denied the execution of
the balance awarded work of the value of about Rs. 12,77,000/-
and the respondent has suffered due to prolongation of the
contract from four months to twenty three months which led to
negligible profit and at the same time, the respondent was denied
the profit which it would have earned, if the balance work would
have been allowed to be carried out by the respondent. The plea
of the petitioner for reduction of the work as per the provisions of
Clause 13 of the agreement was considered by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator and observed that Engineer In-Charge has not given
any notice to the respondent in this regard and thus, the petitioner
cannot derive any benefit out of the provisions of Clause 13 of
the agreement. Ld. Sole Arbitrator further observed that the
respondent is entitled for the losses suffered by him on account of
not allowing him to execute the balance contractual work of the
value of about Rs. 12,77,000/- and while discussing the case law
and considering the facts of the case, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
allowed 10% profits on the unexecuted work of the value of the
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 29 of 35
work of about 12,77,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,27,700/-.
37.The Law is well settled that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is the Sole
Judge of quality and quantity of evidence. The merit based
review as sought by the petitioner, has been discouraged over by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Courts
in catena of judgments. In the present case, it cannot be said that
the view taken by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is not a plausible view
to take in the present facts and circumstances. In these
circumstances, this Court concludes that challenge to the award is
beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
38.As regard the issue of interest, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
allowed claim of the respondent for Rs. 3,45,108/- with interest
@ 12% per annum from 22.12.2012 till the date of payment and
further the Ld. Sole Arbitrator also allowed the claim of the
respondent for Rs. 1,27,700/- due to the losses suffered by the
respondent with interest @ 12% per annum from 22.11.2012 till
the realization of the amount. Further the Ld. Sole Arbitrator also
allowed the claim of the respondent for Rs. Rs. 2,04,000/- as
damages on account of payment of salary to the Graduate
Engineer during the extended contractual period but the same
was allowed without interest. In the present case, the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator also allowed cost of Arbitration proceedings to the
extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the respondent.
39.It is the case of the petitioner that granting of such exorbitant
interest without any reasoning along with costs, is an illegality on
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 30 of 35
the part of Ld. Arbitrator and therefore, requires interference by
this court. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that
the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has discretion to award interest at such
rate as he may deem to be reasonable.
40.As per Section 31 (7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is competent to award interest and
further in terms of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator is competent to award interest at the rates
prevailing in the banking transaction. In a case titled as MSK
Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2011 (8) JT
37 (SC), it has been held that the Arbitrator is competent to award
interest for the period commencing with the date of award or the
date of decree or date of realization, whichever is earlier. While
the amount of interest is a matter of substantive law, the grant of
interest for the part award period is a matter of procedure. Further
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a case between the same
parties titled as M/s Wapcos Limited Vs M/s C & C Energy
Private Limited, FAO (COMM) 53/2021 dated 20.10.2022 has
held that “Insofar as the award of interest is concerned, it is now well
settled that the Arbitral Tribunal has wide discretion in awarding interest
(See: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
(PUNSUP) and Anr. Vs. Ganpati Rice Mills, SLP (C) 36655 of
2016, decided on 20.10.2021″. In the said case, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has observed that “In the present case, Wapcos had also
claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum and therefore, it is not open
for Wapcos now to contend that the said rate is exorbitant and onerous and
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 31 of 35
the Hon’ble High Court also finds no fault with the learned Commercial
Court in declining to interfere with the impugned award “. In the present
case, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has exercised the discretion by
giving reasons for awarding interest @ 12% per annum and the
same seems to be reasonable in this case and therefore, the
reasoning given by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator while awarding the
interest, cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. In view of
the same, the court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in
the impugned award with respect to the interest so awarded by
the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
41.While deciding issue no. (ii) The Ld. Sole Arbitrator did not find
any merit in the counter claim while observing that the act of
imposing the levy of compensation while granting EOT was not
justified and the respondent was not responsible for the delay in
carrying out the work and on the basis of the observations made
while deciding issue no. (i), the Ld. Sole Arbitrator held that
there is no merit in the counter claim and rejected the same.
42.Perusal of the award reflects that Ld. Sole Arbitrator has taken
into consideration the dispute arose between the parties and the
grounds raised by the petitioner to challenge the award, are
factual in nature which have been already considered and
adjudicated in the impugned award. It is outside the scope of
Section 34 of the Act to re-appreciate the entire evidence and
come to conclusion because such an approach would defeat the
purpose of arbitration proceedings. It has been consistently held
that when a court is applying the public policy test to an
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 32 of 35
arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and
consequently, errors of facts cannot be corrected. A possible view
by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the
arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quality and quantity of
evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award.
Thus, an award based on little evidence or no evidence which
does not measure up in quality to a trained legal mind would not
be held to be invalid on this score. Once, it is found that the
arbitrator’s approach is not arbitrary or capricious, then it is the
last word on facts.
43.A bare perusal of the arbitral award shows that Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has examined all the relevant aspects of the contract,
the correspondences made by the parties, the terms of the
contract and the conduct of the parties. Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
remained inside the parameters of the contract and construed the
provisions of the contract. Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding the
issues has operated within the four corners of the contract and has
not travelled beyond it. Ld. Sole Arbitrator has not decided the
issue contrary to the terms of the contract, so it cannot be said
that Ld. Sole Arbitrator misconducted himself or the
interpretation given by him is not reasonable. The petitioner has
failed to establish that Ld. Sole Arbitrator has travelled beyond
the terms of the contract.
44.Having examined the various contentions of the petitioner on the
touchstone of the parameters of interference as explicitly laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 33 of 35
judgments referred to above, I am of the view that the impugned
Award does not call for any interference. This Court cannot re-
appreciate evidence or interpret the Clauses of the Agreement
which the petitioner is calling upon the Court to do. The
contentions of the petitioner are thus, rejected having no merits. I
am of the view that the arbitration award being a reasoned one
and does not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on the
face of the record. It is not for this Court to sit in appraisal of the
evidence led before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and this Court will
not open itself to the task of being a judge on the evidence placed
before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator which was subject matter of
dispute. In the present case, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
deliberated on the issues under reference which were within him
competency. There are no allegations against the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator of misconduct nor of having misconducted the
proceedings which have either been specifically alleged by the
petitioner or established. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator has duly
explained the reasons for arriving at him decisions. There is
nothing to indicate that the award violates Section 28 (3) of the
Act or that, it is in conflict with the basic notions of justice and
the fair play and fundamental policy of Indian law or in
contravention of the terms of the agreement or that it lacks
reasoning as pleaded in the petition.
45.Taking into consideration the various dates and events on record,
I am of the considered opinion that the conclusion drawn by the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator is based on sound reasons and the Ld. Sole
OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 34 of 35
Arbitrator has passed the award after considering the facts,
evidence and material on record. In the impugned award, the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has given logical reasoning in reaching the just
conclusion of the case. The award is well reasoned as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement. There is nothing on
record to show that impugned award is against the terms of the
agreement and against the public policy. Also, there is no patent
illegality in the award. The award is a well reasoned award, based
on evidence and mathematical calculations and not only a
possible but a plausible view.
46.In view of the above discussions, the present objections petition
under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
is dismissed. No order as to cost.
47.File be consigned to record room. Digitally
signed by
ANURAG SAIN
ANURAG Date:
SAIN
(Announced in the Open Court 2025.04.02
16:12:01
+0530
today on 02.04.2025)
(Anurag Sain)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01),
Patiala House Courts Complex, New DelhiOMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 35 of 35
OMP (COMM.) 242/19
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. M/S RAJ BUILDERS
02.04.2025
Present:- None.
Earlier Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
has appeared through video conferencing.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today,
the present objections petition under Section 34 of The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be
Digitally signed
consigned to record room. by ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.04.02
(Anurag Sain)
16:12:20 +0530District Judge (Commercial Court-01),
Patiala House Courts Complex,
New Delhi/02.04.2025OMP (COMM) 242/2019 Page 36 of 35