$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:17.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 22.01.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 595/2020, I.A. 12441/2020, I.A. 12442/2020, I.A.

12443/2020, I.A. 1083/2024 PALI HILLS BREWERIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv with Mr.

Varun Rajawat, Adv., Mr Arjun Chopra, Adv. and Mr. Maulik Khurana, Adv.

versus CARLSBERG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ....Respondent Through: Mr. Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra Adv.

and Mr. Manu Prabhakar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

JUDGMENT

1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 15.09.2020 passed in the matter of “Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pali Hills Breweries Pvt. Ltd.” wherein out of the 7 claims preferred by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal (“Tribunal”)

claim Nos. 1 being liquidated damages and 7 being interest were allowed, claim Nos. 2 and 3 were rejected and claim Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not pressed. The Tribunal further rejected all 5 counter claims of the petitioner.

2. The challenge in the present petition is to the extent of award of claim No. 1 and rejection of counter claim Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The respondent (claimant before the Tribunal) is a manufacturer of beer and the petitioner (respondent before the Tribunal) owns a brewery in the State of Jharkhand. The parties entered into a Contract Brewing and Packaging Agreement (“Agreement”) dated 11.12.2015 (“effective date”)

4. As per clause No. 14.1 of the Agreement, the petitioner was to provide a Bank Guarantee (“BG”) of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- within 15 days of the effective date as a security for CIPL equipment i.e. the 3G labeler and pull off crowner.

5. The respondent on 01.02.2016 asked the petitioner for submission of BG in terms of Clause No. 14.1 of the Contract. The petitioner thereafter vide emails dated 02.02.2016 and 16.02.2016 sought extension of time to submit the BG.

6. The petitioner‟s banker delayed in approving the petitioner‟s proposal for the BG. Therefore, in order to minimise the delay, petitioner proposed the issuance of post-dated cheques as a security for CIPL equipment. The respondent vide email dated 17.06.2016 accepted the said proposal and amended the BG requirement. The petitioner in pursuance thereof, issued post-dated cheques to the tune of Rs. 24 crores as agreed between the parties inter se.

7. The respondent, who was to provide the CIPL equipment, did not provide the same even after submission of the post dated cheques. Thereafter, the respondent invited the petitioner for training of the CIPL equipment, more specifically the 3G Labeler at Parag Brewery, Kolkata. The petitioner after inspecting the Labeler at Parag Brewery, vide email dated 05.10.2016, requested the respondent not to send the said Labeler as the same was not in a good condition.

8. The respondent supplied the said CIPL equipment, i.e. the pull off crowner and the 3G Labeler on 10.10.2016 and 16.10.2016 respectively.

9. The petitioner commenced the brewing process. However, as per the petitioner the 3G Labeler provided by the respondent was defective and no bottling of the product could take place with the said Labeler. The same was pointed out by the petitioner in email dated 05.11.2016 and thereafter on 15.12.2016 the petitioner requested the respondent for replacement of switch mode power supply of the 3G Labeler which was allegedly in a burnt condition. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent to replace the 3G Labeler.

10. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was ready to start the contract manufacturing on 25.10.2016 but due to delay in providing the 3G Labeler, the start date was deferred to January, 2017. Thereafter, as well, the petitioner on multiple occasion informed the respondent about the jamming/ breakdown of the 3G Labeler. The petitioner also informed the respondent about the decline in production and labour issues e