2023 Supreme(Del) 1339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
NTPC Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tata Projects Ltd. – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 59 of 2023, I.A. 2562 of 2023, I.A. 2564 of 2023, I.A. 2565 of 2023 & I.A. 6924 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023

Headnote:

The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs: (a) Call for the records of the arbitration proceedings; (b) Quash and set aside the Award dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Tribunal, limited and confined to the extent where the award has been against the petitioner-NTPC; (c) Award cost of the proceedings; (d) Pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of generation of electricity and allied activities. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of executing urban and industrial infrastructure projects. The petitioner awarded the Balance of Plant Works (hereinafter referred to as BoP) to the respondent. The said BoP is the subject matter in the instant matter. On 20th April, 2015 for the Balance of Plant Works (hereinafter referred to as BoP) and the petitioner floated tenders and issued invitation for bids. As per the said invitation, bids were requested from the parties for the works involving design, engineering, manufacturing, supply of all plant and equipment, mandatory spares, installation services, transportation, civil works, structural works, supervision, pre-commissioning, testing, commissioning and performance testing covered under BoP for the abovementioned thermal plant on Engineering, Procurement and Construction basis (hereinafter referred to as EPC). The respondent submitted its Techno-Commercial bid for the said project on 11th June 2015 and thereafter on 27th October 2016 submitted its price bid. The respondent being the successful bidder was awarded with the work on 10th January, 2017 and vide two separate letters, the petitioner issued Notification of Award (hereinafter referred to as NOA) in favour of the respondent. The Contract between the parties was formally executed on 1st February, 2017, separately for supply & services, containing main Agreements along with appendices, NOAs, special conditions of contract, general conditions of contract, technical specifications read along with amendments, clarifications, errata, techno-commercial bid & price bid and forms & procedures and integrity pact.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioner has failed to corroborate the evidence as to how the learned Tribunal's findings' regarding the Claims is patently illegal. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the Clauses in detail and has construed, and applied the same correctly while dealing with Claim Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Thus, the Award cannot be found faulted with, as no ground has been made out to set aside the impugned Award inasmuch as the threshold to interfere with in an arbitral award has not been made out. Further, with regard to the instant petition, the allegations of misinterpreting and illegally defining the terms of the Contract by the learned Tribunal is rejected and it is held that the Contractual provisions have been constructed in a harmonious manner.

Issues: Whether the impugned Award dated 14th September 2022 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in the matter titled as `Tata Projects Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.', suffers from any infirmities and any kind of patent illegality that per se violates any law, that is fundamental in nature, enshrined in Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Award is thus not patently illegal and neither in conflict with the public policy of India nor contrary to the terms of the Contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Arbitral Tribunal has rightly construed the terms of the Contract for imparting justice to the party whose rights have been affected.

Final Decision: Accordingly, the instant petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed along with pending applications, if any.