$~30

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2022 & I.As. 16041/2022, 16042/2022

SUSHANT GAMBHIR & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate

(M:9871735724,email:rahul.leg

al@gmail.com)

versus

MRJ INFRATECH LIMITED & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vineet Jhanji, Advocate

(M:9811191912)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

%

28.09.2022

O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2022

1.

By way of the present petition, under Section 34 (4) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Act),

petitioner has challenged Award dated 13.07.2022 passed by sole

Arbitrator. The petitioner prays for inclusion of certain reliefs as set

out in the petition and for incorporation of the same by modification

of Award.

2.

By way of the impugned award dated 13.07.2022, an Award in

the sum of Rs.6,76,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy-Six Lakh)

carrying an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the Award has

been passed in favour of the claimants, i.e., petitioners herein.

Petitioners have been held entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount

2022:DHC:4132

paid by them under the concerned transaction, which as per finding of

Ld. Arbitrator, cannot be permitted to be retained by the respondents.

3.

It is the case of ld. Senior Counsel for petitioners that present

petition has been filed since some claims of petitioners, i.e., claimants

in the arbitration proceedings, have not been included and that the

petitioner is aggrieved by non-inclusion, non-grant and rejection of

such of their claims and prayers. Thus, present petition has been filed,

with specific averments made in paragraph – 2 of the petition that

petitioner is seeking prayer for remand of matter to the Ld. Arbitrator.

4.

It is contended that petitioners are seeking remand to the ld.

Arbitrator on certain accounts. Learned Arbitrator has not granted

interest on the paid amount in favour of claimants, i.e., pre-reference

period and pendente-lite period. Attention of this Court has been

drawn to paragraphs 91 to 95 of the impugned award. It is further

submitted that ld. Arbitrator has restricted the interest to only 6% per

annum in view of the contractual stipulations. Ld. Senior Counsel for

the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to higher rate of

interest in view of Section 31(7)(a) of the Act read with Section 2(b)

of the Interest Act, 1978. He further submits that there are no

directions as regards payment of costs to the petitioners in accordance

with mandate of Section 31A of the Act.

5.

Ld. Senior Counsel for petitioners further submits that their

application seeking amendment of prayers with respect to the amounts

already paid to the respondents has been rejected erroneously. He

submits that the rejection of the said application for amendment is in

violation of Section 22(2) and Section 21(3) of the Specific Relief

2022:DHC:4132

Act, 1963.

6.

It is submitted that Ld. Arbitrator has not included amount of

Rs.13.26 Crores (Rupees Thirteen Crores twenty-Six Lakh) as

amounts paid by claimants under the transaction in addition to the sum

of Rs.6.76 Crores ordered to be refunded by way of the award, in view

of the payment of said sum emerging as admission in the testimony of

CW-4, Mr. Pankaj Sahni.

7.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that non-grant of

compensation calculated @ Rs.6,62,18,127/- (Rupees Six Crores

Sixty-Two Lakh Eighteen Thousand One Hundred & Twenty-Seven)

and inclusion of direction to pay court fee on amounts ordered to be

refunded i.e. Rs.6.76 crores, are issues that are required to be

considered by ld. Arbitrator.

8.

In support of their contentions, judgment in the case of Project

Authority of India Vs. M. Hakeem and Another, (2021) 9 SCC 1, has

been relied upon on behalf of petitioners to contend that in view of

Sub-section 4 of Section 3