2020 Supreme(Del) 1363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Pondicherry University - Appellant
Versus
B.E. Billimoria And Co. Ltd. & Anr. - Respondent
Original Miscellaneous Petition (Comm) No. 186 of 2019; Interlocutory Application No. 8723 of 2019
Decided On : 26-05-2020

The grounds for interference with an Award are very limited.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - AWARD - CHALLENGE - GROUNDS - INTERFERENCE BY COURT - LIMITED SCOPE - AWARD UPHELD EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF ISSUE NO.8.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a University, had floated a tender for construction of a Convention Centre. The respondent No.2 (RITES LIMITED) for and on behalf of the petitioner, had floated a tender for ''Construction of Convention Centre having Auditorium of 2500 seating capacity and ancillary building for Puducherry University'' (''Project'', for short). RITES issued a Letter of Award dated January 24, 2012 as well as entered into a Contract for execution of Project on April 4, 2012 (''Contract'' for short) with respondent No.1. The Project was to be completed within eighteen months and original date of completion was August 06, 2013. RITES for and on behalf of the petitioner, got the work executed from the respondent No.1 and had taken all actions pursuant to the directions of the petitioner and had even filed pleadings, evidence for and on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator. The Ld. Arbitrator was appointed by this Court. The respondent No.1 filed its claim statement before the learned Arbitrator. The RITES for and on behalf of the petitioner filed its Statement of Defence and counter claims. Both the parties filed admission / denial of each other''s documents. Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits and their witnesses were cross examined by the other side. The learned Arbitrator passed arbitral Award on November 02, 2018. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.1 moved application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 and the learned Arbitrator passed the order on the said application on December 15, 2018.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the award passed by the learned Arbitrator except to the extent of Issue no.8 as the grounds for interference with an Award are very limited.

Issues: Whether the arbitration proceedings are not maintainable against the Respondent No.1 in its individual capacity? (OPR) Whether the Respondents are in breach of the Agreement dated 3rd Apri1 2012? (OPC) Whether the delay in execution of works under the Agreement was solely attributable to the acts and omission of the Defendants? (OPC) Whether the termination of the Agreement by the Defendants by their letter dated 28th March 2016 is illegal and contrary to the contractual terms? (OPC) Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive payment for the full value of the work done by it as detailed in the final measurements submitted by the Claimant to the Defendants vide its Letter dated 4th April2016? (OPC) Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive price escalation against work done under the Agreement? Whether the forfeiture of the Claimants Earnest Money Deposit, the Security Deposit and the Bank Guarantees by the Defendants is illegal being contrary to the contractual terms and whether the Claimant is entitled to refund of amounts to the same? (OPC) Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive outstanding monies from the Running Account (RA) Bills submitted by the Claimant? (OPC) Whether the Defendants have unlawfully recovered interest on Mobilization Advance from the RA Bills submitted by the Claimant? (OPC) Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive pre suit interest under the various heads as claimed? (OPC) Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive interest pendent lite and/or future/post award interest at 18 percent per annum or at any other rate, and from which date? (OPC) Whether the Claimant is entitled to a declaration that the Show Cause Notice for levy of liquidated damages issued by the Defendant No.1 vide letter dated 1st April 2016 is illegal, null and void? (OPC) Costs Relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to clause 7 of Section of GCC is a possible interpretation and cannot be interfered with by this court in these proceedings. The conclusion of the learned Arbitrator on this aspect is upheld.

Final Decision: The petition is disposed of. No costs.