$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 15.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 17.03.2026 + O.M.P. 222/2009, I.A. 2019/2025 (Stay) & I.A. 15274/2025 (For the disposal of the IA NO. 2019/2025)

UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, CGSC with Mr. Avinash Singh, Mr. Aishwarya Deep Singh and Ms.

Aakriti, Advocates.

versus M/S G.D. TEWARI & CO .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shrey Chathly and Ms.

Vinita Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, has been filed assailing the Arbitral Award dated 13.08.2008 read with the Modified Award dated

15.12.2008, Impugned Award, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. By way of the Impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator has allowed 6 out of the 7 claims of the Respondent herein arising out of the disputes inter alia pertaining to the delay and hindrances caused to the Respondent herein during the pendency of the works to be carried out by the Respondent, attributing such delays and hindrances to the Petitioner herein.

3. At the outset, it is clarified that although the present petition contains several averments challenging different aspects of the Impugned Award, during the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner confined his submissions only to Claims Nos. 1 to 3. In particular, the learned counsel emphasized that the Petitioner’s strongest challenge in the present proceedings pertains to Claim No. 3. In support of this contention, reliance was specifically placed upon Annexure R-11 forming part of the Statement of Defence, wherein it is recorded on behalf of the Claimant/Respondent that “we will not claim any damages on account of delay”. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the aforesaid statement assumes material significance in the context of the adjudication of Claim No. 3 and directly bears upon the sustainability of the findings returned by the learned Arbitrator in respect thereof.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the institution of the present Petition are as follows:

I. The Petitioner herein invited tenders for the execution of the work named and styled as “Providing Independent W.C. & Bathroom (300 Nos.) to the Existing Type-I, General Pool Quarters at Sector-2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi”.

II. The Respondent herein submitted its quotation/tender and the same came to be accepted. Subsequent thereto, the work was awarded to the Respondent herein vide letter dated 19.12.2001, along with the Agreement containing the terms and conditions dated 19.12.2001, Agreement III. The Award letter laid down the timeline that was to be followed and stipulated that the work was to be completed within a period of 12 months. The timeline so laid is reproduced below:

IV. It is stated that various correspondences were exchanged between the parties throughout the pendency of the Project. However, due to certain hindrances faced by the Respondent, the work on the Project got delayed. It was the case of the Respondent herein that the hindrances that were faced by it were not resolved in a timely manner by the Petitioner herein, which ultimately caused the delay.

V. It was further the case of the Respondent that certain extra work items cropped up during the pendency of the Project, which the Petitioner needed the Respondent to resolve and execute, and accordingly, the Respondent submitted its rate analysis in respect of the same. In addition to this, there were certain deviations beyond the schedule of the quantities as mentioned in the Agreement, as between the parties, the rate analysis of which was also enclosed by the Respondent in its letter. More particularly, the Respondent contends that the additional items included a rate analysis for providing and laying cement concrete in the ratio of 1:5:10 in the depressed po