Page 1 of 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2022

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 95/2019 & IA No.3385/2019

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS & SPORTS ..... Petitioner

versus

AGILITY LOGISTIC PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, Adv.

For the Respondent

: Mr. Abhay Raj Varma, Ms. Priyanka Ghosh

& Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advs.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1.

The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (hereinafter ‘MYAS’)

has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the A&C Act’) impugning an

Arbitral Award dated 29.10.2018 (hereinafter ‘theimpugned award’)

delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three members -

Justice (Retd.) Shri R.C. Lahoti, Justice (Retd.) Shri D.P. Wadhwa, and

Justice (Retd.) Shri S.C. Agrawal as the Presiding Arbitrator

(hereinafter ‘the Arbitral Tribunal’).

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001258

Page 2 of 27

2.

The impugned award was delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal in

respect of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection

with the Logistics Service Provider Sponsorship and Services

Agreement dated 16.07.2010 (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’).

Factual Context

3.

In 2009, the Organising Committee of Commonwealth Games,

2010 (hereinafter the ‘OC’) issued a Request for Proposal (hereinafter

‘RFP’) inviting bids for appointing a Logistics Service Provider for the

OC and Queens Baton Relay on the terms and conditions stipulated

therein.

4.

Pursuant to the RFP, the respondent (hereinafter ‘Agility’)

submitted its bid and was declared the successful bidder. Thereafter, by

a Letter of Intent dated 10.03.2010 (hereinafter ‘LOI’), the contract for

providing the Logistic Services was awarded to Agility. Subsequently,

the LOI was revised and amended on 11.03.2010.

5.

In terms of the LOI, Agility was to provide Value-in-Kind

(hereinafter ‘VIK’) services for an amount of ₹11 crores and Value-in-

Cash (hereinafter ‘VIC’) for an amount of ₹1.5 crores. Further, Agility

was required to furnish a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) to the

tune of 10% of the VIK, that is, ₹1.10 crores; and, Corporate

Guarantee/Indemnity to the tune of 100% of the value of the VIK, that

is, ₹11 crores. However, according to the Arbitral Tribunal, the

amended LOI dated 11.03.2010 did not contain the pre-condition of

providing PBG of 10% of the VIK.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001258

Page 3 of 27

6.

The OC directed Agility to begin logistics support for various

supporting events that were scheduled as test events. However, the

services provided during the test events were not covered under the

scope of services provided in the RFP or any other document. Thus, it

was claimed by Agility that a specific assurance and promise was made

by the OC to duly and adequately compensate Agility for the services

so provided.

7.

On 16.07.2010, the Agreement was executed between Agility

and the OC.

8.

Thereafter, by a communication dated 13.10.2010, Agility

requested that it be provided the signed copy of the Agreement.

However, Agility claims that it was provided a photocopy of the

Agreement on 21.12.2010.

9.

Agility had submitted its bid aggregating ₹12.5 crores. The same

comprised of two components – VIK services of the value of ₹11 crores

and VIC services for a sum of ₹1.5 crores. Agility had agreed to provide

the said services in consideration of the sponsorship as offered in terms

of the RFP. Clause 31.1 of the RFP indicated the rationale for the

bidders to offer logistics services in consideration for being the official

logistics sponsor. The said clause is set out below:

“31.1

The Sponsorship Offer o