Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Department of Land Resources - Appellant
Versus
Mukesh And Associates - Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 591 of 2020 & I.A. 12163 of 2020, I.A. 12165 of 2020 I.A. 24081 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Petition seeking to set aside arbitral award - Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside an arbitral award. The petitioner alleged that the award suffered from both factual and legal errors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's contentions were based on factual averments and the court, under Section 34, could not go into those findings. The court also found no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Sole Arbitrator and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around factual errors in the award, including irregularities in the process of awarding the contract, and legal errors related to the imposition of interest under the MSMED Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it could not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal and that Section 34 provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award. The court also emphasized that a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serve as a basis for nullifying an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the release of the amounts lying deposited in favor of the respondent/decree holder.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral) - This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 10.01.2020 as amended on 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in ARB.P. 174/2018.
2. It is stated by Mr. Gogna, learned CGSC for the petitioner, that the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated under Section 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, as well as Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
3. He states that the award suffers from both factual and legal errors.
4. As regards factual errors, he submits that the contract entered into between the parties was void ab initio and hence, has no legal validity as the respondent got the same in a contrived manner and did not comply with the legal and statutory requirements.
5. He submits that the respondent never submitted Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") within the prescribed date.
6. It is stated that on 11.01.2014, the petitioner, i.e. Department of Land Resources under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India issued advertisement for Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") from interested/eligible consultants for assignment of `Monitoring and Evaluation task to external agencies' to ensure objectivity, transparency and credibility of Integrated Watershed Management Portal ("IWMP") implemented by it, separately for 5 regions, i.e. East, West, North, South and North-East regions.
7. As per condition 7 of the EoI, the EoI with accompanying information was to be delivered in a written form in a sealed envelope to the mailing address as mentioned therein within three weeks from the publication of EoI. The EoI categorically mentioned that proposals received after due date will not be entertained under any circumstances.
8. The advertisement was published in the newspaper on 11.01.2014 and the three weeks expired on 01.02.1014, but since 01.02.2014 was a Saturday and a non-working day of the Department, the last date for submission was to be treated as 03.02.2014.
9. It is stated that the respondent did not submit its proposal till the last date, i.e. 03.02.2014 in the written form and in a sealed envelope as mandated under the EoI advertisement.
10. On 06.02.2014, when the proposals received were arranged, it was found that the proposal of the respondent was not there.
11. On 10.02.2014, it was decided by Under Secretary level Officer (after discussion with Economic Advisor) that the proposals received by any means would be considered.
12. On 26.05.2014, the petitioner issued corrigendum to EoI making further changes to the evaluation criteria without the approval of the Competent Authority. It is stated that the same was neither published nor uploaded on the website.
13. On 27.05.2014, the EoI proposals were evaluated and shortlisting of agencies was done. It was indicated that 24 proposals had been received against EoI (including proposals not received in sealed envelope and in a written form).
14. On 18.09.2014, the Department issued Request For Proposal (RFP) from the shortlisted agencies for submission of technical and financial proposals. It is alleged that the RFP again was not approved by the Competent Authority.
15. On 01.10.2014, pre-proposal meeting was held with the bidders.
16. On 02.10.2014, corrigendum to the RFP was issued in accordance with the discussions held in pre-proposal meeting without the approval of the Competent Authority. It is also stated that the criteria of technical evaluation was changed in the corrigendum without the approval of the Competent Authority.
17. The respondent/claimant submitted its proposal/bid for 3 regions (South, West and North-East).
18. On 27.11.2014, the Consultation Evaluation Committee (CEC) was re-constituted to evaluate the technical proposals. The CEC held its last meeting on 07.04.2015 and recommended successful bidders for different regions.
19. On 03.06.2015, the Letter of Intent ("LoI") was issued without the
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award, and a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serv....
The entitlement of the award holder to MSME status, the quantification of interest claimed, and the reasoning behind the arbitral award were central legal points established in the judgment.
The limited scope of intervention by Courts in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
EM-II filing discretionary for micro/small enterprises beyond 180 days; MSMED reference limitation starts from buyer's post-investigation denial, not supply date; narrow Section 34 scope upholds awar....
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty on the substantive contract, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration....
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
