Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000679

FAO 271/2019

Page 1 of 11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

FAO 271/2019 & CM. APPL. 31033/2019

Reserved on

: 09.11.2022

Pronounced on

: 31.01.2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Suruchi Suri, Advocate.

versus

M/S RALHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms.Anusuya

Salwan,

Ms.Nikita

Salwan,

Mr.Bankim

Garg

and

Mr.Rachit Wadhwa, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the

Arbitration Act’), the appellant has assailed order dated 16.04.2019 passed

by the learned ADJ-07, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Arb. No.

212/2018, whereby its objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to

Award dated 09.05.2018 (and subsequent amendments thereto) were

dismissed.

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:01.02.2023

11:55:50

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000679

FAO 271/2019

Page 2 of 11

2. Though the present appeal was filed by the appellant seeking setting

aside of the order dated 16.04.2019, the Award dated 09.05.2018, and the

subsequent amendments thereto, learned counsel for the appellant, on

instructions, restricted her challenge during the course of submissions only

to respondent’s claim Nos. 2 and 3, which were in relation to release of

balance payment of security deposit lying with the Department, directed to

be released to the respondent vide the Award.

3. Facts of the case, pithily put, are that the appellant had floated a

tender dated 20.11.2007 for the civil and electrical portion of construction of

Automobile Workshop-cum-Administrative building at Rohini, Sector-VI,

Delhi. The said work was awarded to the respondent for a consideration

amount of Rs. 18,68,11,252/-. The time stipulated for completion of the

work was 18 months from the date of issuance of letter of award.

Purportedly, the civil component of the work was completed on 31.12.2011

and the electrical part was completed on 07.06.2013.

A dispute arose between the parties relating to payments under the

agreement, which led the respondent to initiate arbitration proceedings in

terms of Clause 53 thereof. The matter was adjudicated by a Sole Arbitrator,

who passed an Award dated 09.05.2018, allowing all claims of the

respondent either partially or fully, except claim Nos. 18 and 20.

Subsequently, two amendments dated 11.05.2018 and 12.05.2018 were

made to the Award by the Arbitrator.

The appellant filed its objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration

Act before the learned District and Sessions Judge, West, Saket Courts,

praying that the Award dated 09.05.2018 (and the subsequent amendments

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:01.02.2023

11:55:50

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000679

FAO 271/2019

Page 3 of 11

thereto) be set aside. However, the objections were dismissed vide the order

impugned herein, i.e. order dated 16.04.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Arbitrator erred

in interpreting Clause H, Special Conditions of Contract in the Agreement

between the parties to conclude that it was the appellant’s responsibility to

file application for obtaining completion/occupancy certificate from local

authorities. It was further contended that in reaching the above conclusion,

the Arbitrator also erred in relying upon the ‘Hand Book of Building Permit

Procedure 2006, Delhi Development Authority’, as the same was not

executed between the parties and was an extraneous document filed by the

respondent. On strength of the aforesaid, it was argued that the impugned

Award was arbitrary, capricious and beyond the scope of mutually agreed

terms in the contract entered between the parties. Learned counsel also

contended t