##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.09.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 28.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010905742023 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 31/2023, CM APPL. 5215/2025&CM APPL. 25260/2025 FLOWMORE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr.

Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv.

versus M/S SKIPPER LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Saurav Gupta and Ms.

Sugandha Batra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.:

1. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The appellant/Flowmore Limited placed a purchase order on the respondent/M/S Skipper Limited for manufacture and supply of structure material for Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited (for brevity ‘JUSNL’). Dispute arose between the parties and arbitration was initiated at the instance of the respondent which culminated in the impugned award dated 05.07.2022. A sum of Rs.8,15,05,674/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of disposal of the finished goods as scrap till the passing of the award and @8% post award was awarded. The counter claim of the appellant was dismissed. The objections petition filed by the appellant under Section

34 of the Act was dismissed on 02.02.2023 and hence, this appeal.

3. The turn of events as occurred in timeline are as under:

3.1 On 20.02.2019, the appellant invited an offer from the respondent for structural material required for the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. (JUSNL). The respondent submitted the offer on 23.02.2019. The appellant issued purchase order dated 02.03.2019 (for short ‘PO’) for a total price of Rs.27,72,31,560/- for manufacture and supply of fabricated and hot-dip galvanized tower parts, stubs, cleats, MS templates, earthing tower material and fasteners, in connection with the JUSNL project.

3.2 On 07.03.2019, the respondent sought amendments /clarifications in the PO, in relation to drawings, shop drawings, bill of material (BOM) and manufacturing clearance. On 08.03.2019 the appellant responded to the issues raised and stated that the respondent could obtain approval of drawings/documents directly from the JUSNL and could send its technical person to Ranchi for further technical discussion. On 30.05.2019 the appellant while providing the drawings, BOM of the tower structures and fasteners asked the respondent to arrange proto inspection. The appellant also directed manufacture of stubs and templates and inspection thereof.

3.3. On 01.06.2019, the appellant requested proto inspection. The respondent reverted that similar prototype had already been made for Simplex-JUSNL project and requested for waiver of prototype. As per Clause 16 of the PO the respondent had to furnish an Advance Bank Guarantee (ABG) equivalent to10% of the basic amount and after that the appellant was to release the 10% advance payment. The respondent on 07.06.2019 furnished an ABG of ₹2,34,94,200/- but the corresponding advance payment was not made by the appellant.

3.4 Again on 11.06.2019 the respondent sought waiver of prototype assembly for the stubs and templates. The appellant in response sought documents finally approved and signed by JUSNL. By e-mail dated 14.06.2019 the appellant requested prototype inspection for each type of tower, stubs and templates. Out of purchase order placed for eight lines, activities relating to three lines were kept in abeyance owing to issues concerning allocation of route by JUSNL.

3.5 On 19.06.2019, the appellant permitted mass production of stubs and templates for five transmission-line locations and sought an inspection call. An email dated 01.07.2019 seeking status of the inspection calls was sent by the appellant. The respondent furnished the revised proforma invoices by e