IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2824 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2824 of 2025 ==========================================================

G.S.E.C. LIMITED Versus DEVENDRA KHOSHLA ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. MANISH BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. MUNJAAL M BHATT, ADVOCATE WITH MS. KHUSHI MEHTA, (8283) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. SAURABH MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE WITH MR PRUTHVIRAJ Y GOHIL(13166) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 25/08/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

1. Heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior advocate with Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, learned advocate with Ms. Khushi Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Malhotra, learned advocate with Mr, Pruthviraj Y. Gohil, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 In nuce, the present dispute arises out of a tender floated on 23.05.1992 for the design and construction of the Gujarat Pavilion at the India International Trade Fair, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, as well as the development of an exhibition-cum-convention centre at Gandhinagar. Pursuant to the said tender, the respondent submitted its bid on

01.06.1992.

2.2 The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted on 04.06.1992 by M/s Ajitsingh Associates, the designated architects for the project. A Tender Agreement was duly executed, and as per Clause 21 thereof, the work was required to be completed within a period of three months under the supervision and approval of the said architects. However, on 11.09.1992, a show cause notice was issued by the architect to the respondent, citing delays in execution and calling for an explanation regarding the imposition of penalty. Subsequently, on 01.10.1992, the architect explicitly intimated that no escalation in rates would be permitted. The architect further declined to certify the disputed final bills submitted by the respondent.

2.3 On 23.11.1992, the respondent raised Final Bill Nos. 5A and 5B, aggregating to a claim of Rs. 62,40,240.97/-. After adjustments, a balance sum of Rs. 31,67,070.97/- was claimed, forming the foundation of the arbitral dispute. In 1993-1994, the Respondent instituted a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Suit No. 1616/1993) before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The matter was subsequently transferred to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, and renumbered as Suit No. 5808/1994. On 28.01.1998, the Civil Court referred the dispute to the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal (GPWCD Tribunal), asserting jurisdiction under the Tender Agreement.

2.4 In 2004, following disinvestment by the Government of Gujarat, its 56.06% shareholding in Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. was sold, and control of management changed. The entity was renamed G.S.E.C. Ltd. (Appellant herein). On 03.04.2012, the GPWCD Tribunal declined jurisdiction, holding that the arbitration clause envisaged party-appointed arbitrators. No further steps were taken by the respondent until 2015.

2.5 On 06.10.2015, the respondent approached this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act, 1996”), for appointment of an arbitrator. The application was registered as ARBI.P/82/2015 on 26.11.2015 and this Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator, Hon’ble Justice J.C. Upadhyaya (Retd.).

2.6 On 16.08.2017, the Sole Arbitrator rendered the Impugned Award, partly allowing the Respondent’s claims. An amount of Rs. 10,03,011/- towards the final bill and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards refund of security deposit was awarded, with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.11.1992 and 13.12.1992 respectively. The Appellant’s counter-claims were summarily rejected.

2.7 Aggrieved by this, the