$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24.02.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 204/2016 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates with Mr. Yatinder Choudhary, Law Officer.

versus M/S RAJDEEP INDUSTRIES .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, being O.M.P. (COMM) 204/2016, has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, assailing the findings of the learned Arbitrator in respect of certain limited claims adjudicated under the Arbitral Award dated

26.04.2013, read with the corrigendum dated 28.05.2013, Impugned Award

2. The limited contention advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner, Airports Authority of India, AAI, in the present petition is that the grant of Claim Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 17 under the Impugned Award is legally unsustainable, as the said claims are ex facie barred by limitation. It is further submitted that some of these claims pertain to periods substantially prior to the relevant reference date, and in certain instances relate to events alleged to have occurred as far back as the year 1996.

3. Learned counsel for the AAI further submits that the final bill was raised on 16.04.1999 and was accepted under protest by the Respondent on 28.04.1999. He relies upon the Acceptance Letter dated 16.07.1999, Acceptance Letter of the Respondent, which reads as follows:

“RDI-ARC The Chief· Engineer, AAI, ARC Project, IGI Airport, Palam, New Delhi-110037 Subject:- Construction of Composite Structure for 60 mts.

Span Hanger in Structural Steel and Abutting Two Storyed Building on RCC Frame Work at IGI Airport, New Delhi.

Dear Sir, The bill prepared by the Executive Engineer (C-11) has been accepted by us under protest. We will be shortly appealing to the competent authority to set aside your order vide your letter no. Engg/CE/ARC/1997/878 dated 21.06.99 wherein you have imposed a penalty of Rs.93,916 under clause 2 of the agreement. As till date we have not received various payments including 10 CC payments due to us, we therefore are reserving our right to invoke arbitration and raise claims after the out come of our appeal and receipt of the final payment i.e. last payment. The penalty imposed by you and the appeal against your order has been discussed with the Executive Engineer and he has assured us that he will look into our various payments after the outcome of the appeal.

Thanking You Yours Faithfully, For RAJDEEP INDUSTRIES, Er. DEEPAK SEHGAL (Partner)”

4. A perusal of the aforestated letter demonstrates that the protest was expressly raised only in respect of two issues, namely, (i) imposition of penalty of Rs. 93,916/- under Clause 2 of the Agreement, and (ii) escalation under Clause 10CC of the Agreement.

5. Learned counsel for the AAI further submits that no other claims were articulated in the said letter, save for vague averments reserving the right to invoke arbitration and raise claims after the outcome of the appeal.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the grant of the claims which were never subject matter of the final bill is clearly time-barred in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.C. Budhraja vs. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 444 specifically Paragraph Nos. 21 and 24 thereof, which read as follows:

“21. It is now well settled that a writing to be an acknowledgment of liability must involve an admission of a subsisting jural relationship between the parties and a conscious affirmation of an intention of continuing such relationship in regard to an existing liability. The admission need not be in regard to any precise amount nor by expressed words. If a defendant writes to the plaintiff requesting him to send his claim for verification and payment, it amounts to an acknowledgment. But if the defendant merely says,