The arbitral award's findings on limitation are upheld, while claims lacking substantiation and unfounded financing charges are rejected as contrary to contract terms.

JUDGMENT

% 12.01.2026

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Signature Not Veri 1 f i“eAd&C Act”, hereinafter, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 , assailing the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. (COMM) No. 22/2020 titled as “Delhi Jal Board (DJB) v. M/s Mohini Electricals Ltd.”. The appellant had earlier filed the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the learned Single Judge seeking setting aside of the arbitral award dated 02.09.2019, “Impugned Award”, hereinafter rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. By the said impugned award, the learned Arbitral Tribunal allowed the majority of the claims preferred by the respondent (claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal) while rejecting certain claim 3, 6A, 7, 11 and 14. The arbitral proceedings emanate from disputes arising out of the contract dated 28.11.2003, executed between the parties for the “Construction of various reservoirs at different location in TYA Areas, Delhi of Delhi Jal Board, “the Project”, hereinafter”

FACTS

3. The brief factual matrix necessary for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal is delineated below.

4. The Delhi Jal Board, “DJB”, hereinafter (appellant hereinafter) invited tenders vide NIT No.8(2002-2003) for construction of Underground Reservoirs, “UGR”, hereinafter and Booster Pump Stations, “BPS”, hereinafter across multiple sites in the Trans Yamuna Area, Delhi, “TYA”, hereinafter. The work was to be executed on a turnkey basis covering civil construction and supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Electrical and Mechanical⁸ systems. Construction of UGRs with associated BPSs was required at five specified locations within the TYA area. At the sixth location, Tahirpur (Nand Nagri), the scope was Signature Not Veri f i“eEd&M”, hereinafter limited to the construction of a UGR only.

5. For the aforesaid project, M/s Mohini Electrical Ltd. (respondent hereinafter) entered into a consortium arrangement dated 20.01.2003 with M/s Jes Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s GSJ Envo Ltd., with the respondent designated as the Consortium Leader.

6. Upon completion of the pre-qualification process, the respondent submitted its technical and financial bids. A Work Order dated 30.09.2003, “Work Order”, hereinafter was thereafter issued for a total value of Rs. 28,49,72,521/- comprising civil works of Rs. 18,63,11,936/- and E&M works of Rs. 9,86,60,583/-. The scope of the E&M works further envisaged an Operation and Maintenance, “O&M”, hereinafter obligation for five years following the completion of the trial run.

7. The Work Order stipulated commencement of work on the 14th day from the issuance of the Work Order and completion within 18 months, including 15 months for execution and 3 months for the trial, fixing 14.10.2003 as the commencement date and 13.04.2005 as the scheduled completion date.

8. Thereafter, the parties executed a formal contract on 28.11.2003¹¹, incorporating the FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction for Building and Engineering Works, First Edition 1999, as modified by Part II – Conditions of Particular Application.

Signature Not Veri

1 f i e“dcontract”, hereinafter

9. Disputes arose soon thereafter concerning commencement and pace of work. According to the appellant, the respondent started work only on 19.11.2003, and even then, at only one site, with negligible progress, d