IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
Fresh And Healthy Enterprise Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Global Agrisystem Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 174 of 2016, O.M.P. (COMM) 181 of 2016
Decided On : 11-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cross petitions challenging an arbitral award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background on fhel and gapl's storage agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. issues arising from the storage arrangement and access. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. awards and challenges relating to the arbitration. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. arguments presented by fhel against the arbitral award. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. arguments by gapl contesting the award's rental charges. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. limitations on court's interference with the arbitral award. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. findings on storage conditions and responsibilities. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. assessment of contractual obligations regarding storage. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. judicial adherence to the arbitral findings and award. (Para 62 , 64 , 68) |
| 11. final judgment and dismissal of both petitions. (Para 72 , 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. These are cross petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 02.08.2013 passed in the matter of “Global Agri Systems Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Fresh & Healthy Enterprises Limited New Delhi”. Both the parties have filed their respective petition to challenge the aforesaid Award.
2. M/s Global AgriSystem Pvt. Ltd. (“GAPL”) was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings and M/s Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd. (“FHEL”) was the respondent and counter-claimant.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND (for the sake of convenience factual matrix has been taken from O.M.P. (COMM) 174/2016)
3. FHEL, a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. (a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Railways), provides cold storage services at FHEL CA Store, HSIIDC Industrial Estate, Rai, Sonepat-131029.
4. GAPL carries the business of fruit and vegetable and has its registered office at K-13A Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi-110016.
5. In 2010, GAPL approached FHEL for storing carrots in the cold storage and started storing them in the cold storage facility of the FHEL.
6. In 2011, GAPL again approached FHEL for storing carrots in the cold storage and supplied a written draft agreement to FHEL vide email dated 03.02.2011. Thereafter, emails were exchanged between the parties, which contained the terms and conditions of the work agreed between the parties. In the e-mail dated 18.02.2011, FHEL mentioned as following:-
“1) We can offer Storage for 2500 MT of Carrots.
2) Storage can be extended maximum till 15th Sept. 2011 only. Beyond that date FHEL will have to take necessary action as the chambers will be need by it for its own use.
3) Space required for washing, sorting and grading etc needs to be jointly discussed.
4) Charges for power, water, waste disposal, manpower for waste disposal will be extra and can be jointly decided.
5) Rental Payment has to be on advance and on monthly basis.
6) One month rental to be given as security money.
7) Labour arrangement and charges can be mutually decided among you, FHEL and the labour contractor.
8) We envisage 3 fork lifts will need to be deployed for your work the charges for the same shall be @ Rs 3000/- per day. 9)Our liability stands restricted till maintaining of Protocols jointly agreed only. 10% reading can be above the agreed protocols.
10) For any other services the charges will be extra and can be mutually agreed.
11)For any movement other then loading and unloading the charges will be extra.
12) Operations need to be discussed in detail before hand with our operations team, like how the carrots will be received? How it will be transfeered in to big bins? when washing etc will take place? what will be final packing? etc.
13) For any shifting during storage period the handling cost will be extra.
the above points need to be discussed for finalisation of the agreement, hence you may visit Rai for final discussions.”
7. In response


Executive Engineer, Dhankanal Minor Irrigation Division vs. N.C. Budharaj
Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.
AI
The court reaffirmed that an agreement can be derived from email communication, establishing parties' contractual relationships and responsibilities, particularly in the context of bailment, with dam....
The construction of contract terms is within the exclusive domain of the Arbitrator, and lack of denial by a party and failure to participate in arbitration proceedings can influence the decision.
The court upheld the Arbitrator's decision based on the terms of the contract and the evidence presented, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Act.
An arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the matters that are submitted to it for arbitration and that an arbitrator cannot exceed his or her jurisdiction by deciding matters that are not wi....
The construction of contract terms and the validity of termination in arbitration proceedings are within the exclusive domain of the Arbitrator, and the court will not interfere unless the decision i....
The court confirmed that arbitrators' findings on contractual breaches and damages claims must be upheld unless shown to be improper within limited review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.