Back
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Against
The , led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan, has delivered a significant judgment regarding the scope of . The court partially set aside an against the (), ruling that the tribunal exceeded its by granting operation and maintenance (O&M) charges for services not yet performed at the time of the award.
A Bridge, A Collapse, and A Contractual Deadlock
The dispute stemmed from a awarded to a between and for the design and supervision of a cable-stayed bridge over the Chambal River in Kota, Rajasthan. Following a partial collapse of the structure in , relations between the parties deteriorated. While the project was eventually completed, disagreements persisted regarding the execution of a and the release of payments.
The respondent invoked arbitration in after refused to process invoices for the extended project period without a formal . The tribunal subsequently awarded substantial claims for both the construction and O&M phases.
Scope of Dispute and Arbitral Limits
The core of 's challenge centered on whether the tribunal overstepped its mandate. argued that the tribunal failed to resolve the crucial issue of liability for the bridge collapse, entertained , and relied on internal financial data regarding an O&M expert, Sh. Sunil Bohra, without providing an opportunity to rebut the evidence.
The respondent maintained that the liability issue was not the primary subject of the arbitration and that the O&M charges were correctly awarded to avoid further litigation.
Legal Analysis and The Power of Severability
Justice Jhingan emphasized that while courts have limited scope to interfere in under , the tribunal’s decision to grant future O&M charges—covering services to be rendered after the date of the award—was legally unsustainable. The High Court affirmed that the tribunal's reliance on information obtained behind the back of the petitioner violated the enshrined in .
Drawing upon the , the court determined that the invalid portion of the award relating to future O&M claims could be excised without undermining the rest of the tribunal’s findings, thereby preserving the integrity of the valid claims.
Key Observations
-
"Relief cannot be granted on an apprehension and for services yet to be rendered for which no amount was due on the date of passing of the award."
-
"The relief travels beyond the scope of submission to arbitration and is contrary to the ."
-
"Where materials are taken behind the back of the parties by the Tribunal, on which the parties have had no opportunity to comment, the ground under would be made out."
Implications of the Ruling
The judgment serves as a strict reminder to arbitral tribunals to remain within the confines of the dispute submitted to them. By setting aside the portion of the award that granted future, unaccrued maintenance costs, the High Court has reinforced the principle that arbitration must be grounded in actual, existing grievances rather than hypothetical future costs. This decision provides a clear path for challenging awards that stray from the prayer and ensures that regarding the submission of evidence remains a non-negotiable requirement in Indian arbitration proceedings.
