Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, Vibhu Bakhru, JJ
Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Engineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarter – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 | I.A. 335/2021 | I.A. 336/2021 | I.A. 5882/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Mohan, Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, Md Adil Khan, Sudhir Nandrajog, C.S. Chauhan, Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Vikram Jetly

Judicial interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own view. Where parties are given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to amendments, the award does not violate natural justice principles.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to arbitral award - Principle of non-interference - Scope of judicial review - Proceedings under Section 34 are summary in nature and not like a full-fledged civil suit or appeal - Court is not to re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings unless award suffers from patent illegality or contravention of fundamental policy of law - If two views are possible, the view taken by the arbitral tribunal is to prevail. (Paras 27, 28, and 29)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 23(3) and 31(3) - Principles of natural justice - Amendment of claims/counter-claims - Arbitrator has discretion to allow amendments during proceedings provided parties have knowledge and opportunity to respond - Mere delay in seeking amendment does not invalidate the proceedings where the opposing party has been given notice and an opportunity to file objections. (Paras 34, 43, 44, and 45)

Facts of the case:
Following the termination of a construction contract due to alleged slow progress, disputes arose between the parties regarding claims and counter-claims. An arbitrator was appointed, and during the proceedings, the respondent sought and was granted leave to amend its counter-claims to rectify calculation errors found in the final bill. The petitioner challenged the arbitral award under Section 34, primarily alleging that it was denied a fair opportunity to contest the amended counter-claims and that the arbitrator acted in violation of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to respond to the amendment applications and had in fact filed replies. The record indicated that the amendments were based on clerical/arithmetical corrections which were transparently discussed and supported by documentation shared between the parties. The court concluded that the petitioner's rights were not prejudiced and the arbitrator's procedural approach did not violate the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the arbitral award warranted interference under Section 34 due to alleged violation of natural justice regarding the allowance of amended counter-claims and whether the arbitrator failed to provide a reasoned award.

Ratio Decidendi: Principles of natural justice are satisfied when a party has knowledge and a meaningful opportunity to respond to claims, regardless of the format of procedural orders. Where an amendment involves correcting simple arithmetical mistakes, its allowance does not constitute patent illegality or bias, particularly when the opposing party fully participates in the debate.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the contractual dispute and history of the arbitral proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. petitioner's assertion of procedural unfairness regarding the unnotified amendment of counter-claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. respondent's contention that the amendments were procedural and the petitioner had adequate notice. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. judicial restraint under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. assessment of arbitral record confirming knowledge and opportunity to contest specific amendments. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. final determination that adherence to natural justice principles validates the arbitral decision. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

J U D G M E N T

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the arbitral award dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the matter of “Supreme Infrastructure v. Engineer-in-chief, Army Headquarter”.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 02.06.2010 the respondent (respondent in the Arbitral Proceedings) issued a tender for construction of dwelling units including allied services for Officers, JCOs and ORs at Babina. The petitioner (claimant in the arbitral proceedings) participated in the tender process and was awarded the contract for a total value of approximately Rs. 50.7 crores. Pursuant thereto, a Contract Agreement was executed between the parties on 01.11.2010, incorporating the General Conditions of Contract governing military engineering works.

3. As per the contractual stipulations, the work was to be executed in three phases, with completion schedules extending between the years 2011 and 2013. The petitioner commenced execution of the work after mobilisation of men, machinery, tools, plant and materials at site.

4. According to the petitioner, from the inception of the project, execution of the work was impeded on account of factors attributable to the respondent, including delayed handing over of clear and obstruction-free site, frequent changes in drawings and specifications, additional and extra items of work, delayed approvals, and interruptions in execution owing to administrative reasons. Further running account bills were not processed and released in a timely manner, resulting in financial constraints and disruption of work.

5. On 19.12.2014, the respondent cancelled the Contract, citing slow progress and failure to adhere to milestones.

6. Since there were disputes between the parties in relation to termination of the Contract and financial claims, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. Upon the respondent’s failure to appoint an arbitrator, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act and the Sole Arbitrator was appointed.

7. The arbitral proceedings continued over several years. Pleadings were completed, evidence was led, and detailed oral arguments were addressed by both sides. Upon conclusion of arguments, the matter was reserved for award in January 2019.

8. After a lapse of more than one year from reserving of the award, the Sole Arbitrator reopened the proceedings and permitted the respondent to amend its counter-claims. The amendment resulted in enhancement of the quantum of counter-claims, which was stated to be on account of correction of calculations. The petitioner objected to the amendment on the ground that it caused serious prejudice and was permitted at an advanced stage of the proceedings.

9. The Sole Arbitrator thereafter passed the impugned arbitral Award dated 13.08.2020. By the said Award, the Sole Arbitrator held that the petitioner had abandoned the project, rejected the majority of the petitioner’s claims including claims for prolongation costs, and allowed substantial portions of the respondent’s counter-claims.

10. Aggrieved by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIJasmeet Singh, Vibhu Bakhru, JJSupreme Infrastructure India Ltd – AppellantVersusEngineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarter – RespondentO.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 | I.A. 335/2021 | I.A. 336/2021 | I.A. 5882/2024

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, Vibhu Bakhru, JJ
Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Engineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarter – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 | I.A. 335/2021 | I.A. 336/2021 | I.A. 5882/2024