2026:CGHC:17328 NAFR Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR signed by RAHUL RAHULJHA JHA Date:

2026.04.16

13:28:15 Judgment Reserved on 09/04/2026 +0530 Judgment Delivered on 16/04/2026 ARBA No. 40 of 2018

1 - Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Raipur Circle Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - District Telecom Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Sub Divisional Officer Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant(s)

Versus M/s Talat Construction Kharasia Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui and Ms. Astha Patel, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J

C A V Judgment

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”) is directed against the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Misc. Civil Case No. 65/2017, whereby the application preferred by the appellants/BSNL under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been dismissed and the arbitral award dated 15.04.2017 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in accordance with their status before the learned Arbitrator, i.e., the respondent herein shall be referred to as the “claimant” and the appellants herein shall be referred to as the “respondents”.

3. (a) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), invited tenders bearing Tender Notice No. W-2/34/Tender/TDM/Ambikapur/Cable Construction Work/10-/ for laying underground cables, jointing them etc., at different locations/sites within the jurisdiction of Telecom District Ambikapur, with an estimated cost of ₹25,00,000/-. The respondent/claimant M/s Talat Construction, being the lowest bidder, was awarded the tender and an agreement dated

06.11.2010 came to be executed between the parties.

(b) According to the claimant, only work to the extent of ₹62,388/- was executed by him and despite submission of bills, the payment was not released. It was further contended that the Earnest Money Deposit of ₹62,500/-, which was subsequently converted into Security Deposit, was not refunded. The claimant further asserted that the balance work amounting to ₹24,37,612/- was not awarded to him and therefore claimed loss of profit at the rate of 15% thereon along with interest, aggregating to ₹6,59,337/-.

(c) The respondents/BSNL, while admitting execution of agreement, specifically denied issuance of any work order beyond the limited work and contended that no right accrued in favour of the claimant for execution of the entire contract. It was further pleaded that the Security Deposit amount had already been refunded pursuant to sanction order and that non-award of further work was on account of vigilance enquiry.

4. The learned Sole Arbitrator, upon adjudication of the claim filed by the Claimant on 23/08/2013, partly allowed the same by its award dated 15/04/2017 and directed payment of ₹62,500/- towards Security Deposit and ₹2,43,761/- towards loss of profit, along with interest @ 10% per annum from 13.03.2013 till realization and further costs amounting to ₹2,00,000/-.

5. The appellants challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996; however, the learned District Judge dismissed the application holding that the scope of interference is limited and no ground under Section 34(2) is made out. Hence, this appeal by the appellants/BSNL.

6. (a) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned arbitral award as well as the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are wholly unsustainable in law, being vitiated by patent illegality, perversity, and complete disreg