ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. By way of this Speaking to Minutes note the applicant has prayed to make correction by deleting the name of Mr. Saurin Shastri learned advocate in judgment dated 16.03.2026 in Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 1142 of 2026 in First Appeal No. 1010 of 2026.

2. Having heard learned advocate for applicant and considering the averments made in the note, the present Speaking to Minutes is allowed. The name of Mr. Saurin Shastri, learned advocate be deleted from the cause title as well as from Paragraph Nos. ‘1’, ‘4’ and ‘4.1’ in the judgment dated 16.03.2026 in Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 1142 of 2026 in First Appeal No. 1010 of 2026.

3. The judgment dated 16.03.2026 is corrected accordingly. The rest of the order shall remain as it is. With this, the present Speaking to Minutes Note is disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

D.N.RAY, J.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :-

There is no serious objection to the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. Office shall allot the regular number to the appeal.

ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL :-

1. Heard Mr. Saurin Shastri for Ms. Archana U. Amin, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-appellant.

2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

2.1 The appellant herein was the original applicant, whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. CMA/507/2021 instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1996”). The said proceedings were adjudicated by the learned Commercial Court at the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

2.2 The appellant had issued Tender No. 17-Elect/Dy.CEE/C/T/88 dated 23.04.2015 for the work relating to design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of a 2×100 KW grid-connected rooftop solar power plant along with ancillary equipment. The respondent emerged as the successful bidder, pursuant to which the contract was awarded in its favour and a formal agreement came to be executed between the parties on 16.10.2015.

2.3 Upon commencement of the contractual work, payments were released by the appellant in accordance with the stipulated terms of the tender. As per the contractual conditions, inspection and testing under Clause 2.3.10 and provisional acceptance under Clause 2.3.11 were required to be completed by 12.05.2016. By that stage, approximately 64% of the contract value had been disbursed, while the balance amount was retained subject to compliance with the aforesaid conditions.

2.4 The appellant has asserted that the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO), designated as the final technical certifying authority under the contract, had, on multiple occasions, pointed out certain deficiencies and deviations from the prescribed standards under Clause 2.3.10. According to the appellant, such deficiencies were acknowledged by the respondent. It is further the appellant’s case that upon re-inspection conducted by RDSO on 28/29.12.2017, the installation was found to be non-compliant with the requisite standards, and consequently, the plant was rejected by RDSO vide letter dated 03.01.2018.

2.5 Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 03.01.2018, the respondent approached the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Council. The Council, by its order dated 18.06.2018, referred the disputes between the parties to arbitration. In pursuance thereof, arbitral proceedings were conducted, culminating in an award dated 11.03.2019 whereby the learned Arbitral Tribunal partly allowed the claims of the respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,29,734/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award till realization.

2.6 Subsequently, the respondent preferred an application dated 28.03.2019 under Order XLVII of the Co