$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 243/2018 & I.A. 6662/2023 INNOVATIVE B2B LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Rahul Khosla, Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Mr. Sarang Rastogi, Ms. Shweta Singh & Mr. Ramapati Mishra, Advs.

versus CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmad & Ms. Garima Tyagi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) is filed being aggrieved of the arbitral award dated 16.01.2018.

2. The brief facts are that the parties to the lis entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.02.2007 (for brevity „the MOU‟). The parties agreed to identify areas of mutual co-operation by synergizing their resources for providing efficient logistic solutions through the management of rakes owned by the petitioner.

2.1 Pursuant to execution of the MOU, an agreement dated 16.07.2007 (hereinafter „the agreement‟) was executed for the hiring of wagons for container train service. Article 6.1 of the agreement provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. The relevant part is reproduced below:

“6.1 Dispute resolution- All dispute or differences whatsoever arising between the parties hereto out of or relating to the construction, meaning and operation or effect of this agreement or the breach thereof which cannot be settled by mutual discussion shall be referred to and settled by arbitration under the legislation on arbitration prevailing in India and shall be conducted in accordance with the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or such other prevailing Act, and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties. The venue for arbitration shall be at Delhi and any litigation arising therefrom shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Delhi."

2.2 The petitioner issued a notice dated 25.07.2016 to initiate arbitration proceedings. It was stated in the notice that the respondent was called upon to appoint an arbitrator of its choice within fifteen days, failing which the petitioner would proceed in accordance with law. The Managing Director (for short „the MD‟) of the respondent vide order dated 05.08.2016 appointed a sole arbitrator unilaterally. The proceedings culminated in the impugned award and the concluding part of the award is reproduced below:

“27. CONCLUSIONS:

In view of the foregoing, I hereby make the following AWARD In these proceedings:

Issues/claims by Claimant

1. The Respondent and the Claimant were directed to reconcile the figure/amount of the claims. As parties could not submit reconciled figures, the Claimant has pleaded/argued its case based on its own figures of claim/supporting documents.

The prayer of the Claimant vide application dated 18th December, 2017-for non-reliance on Respondent's accounts/ striking off of defence is devoid of merits, and hence not admitted.

2(a) claim for refund of Rs 312.30 lakh on account of stabling, siding, shunting charges etc is not admitted. Respondent is entitled to recover 60% of all the charges as paid to Railways on account of stabling, siding and shunting charges on rakes of wagons provided by the Claimant under the agreement.

2(b) claim for refund of Rs 213.48 Lakh on account of VAT is not admitted.

2(c) claim of Rs 41.22 lakh forming part of the 60% of gross margin is admitted. The Respondent is not entitled to deduct 0.72% from the share of Claimant which is 60% of gross margin.

2(d) claim on account of non-recovery of outstanding from customers is admitted. The Respondent is not entitled to recover Rs 36,57,099, or any other amount, on account of non-recovery of dues from its customers.

2(e) claim for release of Rs 26,38,03,492 towards wagon hire/rentals for the period from February 2009 till 3 October, 2015 withheld/set of