The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot withdraw from an agreement made by its counsel, especially when it had not objected to the concession at any point in time.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI for short) impugns judgment dated 01.06.2022 whereby the objections filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been allowed and the entire award has been set aside based on an agreement of the parties recorded in order dated 24.03.2022.

2. The dispute between the parties arose out of a contract agreement dated 18.03.2016 entered into between the parties with regard to the collection of User Fee at Palsit Toll Plaza. The disputes were referred to a three Member Arbitral Tribunal leading to rendering of an award dated 31.03.2021.

3. Though, the respondent had made several claims, some of the claims of the respondent were allowed and some were rejected. Respondent filed the subject objections before the learned Single Judge of this court impugning the award to the extent that it computed the compensation in favour of the respondent. The damages were dependent on the finding returned by the Arbitral Tribunal on the question of force majeure.

4. It may be noticed that the appellant never challenged the award when the Objection Petition under Section 34 of the Act was listed before this court on 24.03.2022, the following order was passed:

"3. After some arguments, the learned counsel for both parties state that they are agreeable that the Arbitral Award may be set aside by reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.

4. One of the disputes before the Arbitral Tribunal was whether there was any force majeure event warranting an award for compensation. The Arbitral Tribunal has accepted that there was one. The petitioner challenges the quantification of damages based on the aforesaid finding. The respondent's contention that there was no force majeure event was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent contends that the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to the effect that there was a force majeure event is erroneous.

5. Although the respondent has not challenged the award, Mr. Talwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no objection if the entire award is set aside and the parties are relegated for re-adjudication of their disputes before the Arbitral Tribunal. He suggests that given the value of the claim, the disputes be referred to a sole arbitrator.

6. Mr. Banerjee learned counsel for the respondent, seeks time to take instructions in this regard."....

5. The contention of the appellant is that the counsel for the appellant never agreed to the setting aside of the award or allowing of the objections filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act but had sought an adjournment to take instructions. He submits that thereafter, the counsel was informed that the Competent Authority of the appellant had already accepted the award and decided to implement the same.

6. Learned counsel submits that though the court was informed that the appellant had not agreed to the setting aside of the award by consent, in the impugned order the court has held that there was an agreement of the appellant for setting aside of the entire award and consequently, the award has been set aside.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order dated 24.03.2022 is explicit and it records three things (i) setting aside of the award on the challenge under Section 34 as raised by the respondent, to which it is contended that there was a clear agreement between the parties that the same be set aside reserving all rights and contentions of the parties; (ii) concession given by the respondent that even on the issues decided in favour of the respondent i.e., the finding of force majeure clause, the award be set aside and remitted in toto; (iii) given the value of the claim the disputes be referred to a sole Arbitrator instead of three Member Tribunal.

8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it was only with reg