$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 24.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 24.03.2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 195/2024 WADIA TECHNO ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Mr. Himanshu Raj, Ms. Pragati Singh, Mr. Rajat Joshi and Ms. Esha Garg, Advs.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MARRIED ACCOMMODATION PROJECT & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, CGSC along with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar Rana and Ms. Pragati Trivedi, Advs.

Mr. Arnav Kumar and Ms.

Manya Gupta, Advs.

+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 196/2024 WADIA TECHNO ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Mr. Himanshu Raj, Ms. Pragati Singh, Mr. Rajat Joshi and Ms. Esha Garg, Advs.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, MARRIED ACCOMMODATION PROJECT & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, CGSC along with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar Rana and Ms. Pragati Trivedi, Advs.

Mr. Arnav Kumar and Ms.

Manya Gupta, Advs.

+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 198/2024 WADIA TECHNO ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Mr. Himanshu Raj, Ms. Pragati Singh, Mr. Rajat Joshi and Ms. Esha Garg, Advs.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MARRIED ACCOMMODATION PROJECT & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, CGSC along with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar Rana and Ms. Pragati Trivedi, Advs.

Mr. Arnav Kumar and Ms.

Manya Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Appeals, filed by the Appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟], assail the correctness of the common judgment dated 28.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(COMM) 518/2023, OMP(COMM) 526/2023 and OMP(COMM) 527/2023.

2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge adjudicated three petitions filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging separate arbitral awards rendered in disputes arising between the parties. Insofar as OMP(COMM) 518/2023 is concerned, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition by setting aside the arbitral award only in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 3 in the Vizag Case, permitting the parties to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings in respect of the said claims. In respect of the remaining claims, the petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed OMP(COMM) 526/2023 and OMP(COMM) 527/2023, relating to the Pune and Ahmednagar cases, and rejected all other claims of the Appellant, including claims arising out of risk and cost contracts, prolongation of contract, and miscellaneous claims concerning deductions and service tax/GST.

3. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeals is whether the learned Single Judge erred in affirming the findings of the learned Arbitrator in respect of the claims rejected in the Vizag, Pune, and Ahmednagar cases, particularly:

i. Claims for enhancement of consultancy fees on account of variations in project cost;

ii. Claims relating to services provided under risk and cost contracts;

iii. Claims arising out of prolongation of the contract and defect liability period; and iv. Miscellaneous claims relating to deductions and service tax/GST.

4. Since the issues in all three present Appeals are similar and involve the same set of parties, the same are being disposed of through this common judgment. For clarity and structured analysis, the Appeals are addressed case-wise and claim-wise, strictly following the issues as raised in the impugned awards.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeals, it would be apposite to briefly notice the relevant factual background giving rise to the disputes between the