Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Itd Cementation India Ltd vs Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd on 24 March, 2023

Author: Chandra Dhari Singh

Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh

                  $~27
                  *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +       O.M.P. (COMM) 112/2023
                          ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LTD.                          ..... Petitioner
                                             Through:     Dr. Amit George, Mr. Piyo Harold
                                                          Jaimon and Mr. Rayadurgam Bharat,
                                                          Advocates

                                             versus

                          RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD.                              ..... Respondent
                                             Through:     Mr. Udit Seth and Ms. Priya Kanwat,
                                                          Advocates

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
                                             ORDER

% 24.03.2023 I.A. 5807/2023 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

O.M.P. (COMM) 112/2023

1. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "The Act, 1996") has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"A. Set aside the Arbitral Award dated 31.11.2022 published by the Ld. AT comprising of Justice Anil Dev Singh (Retd.) (Presiding Arbitrator), Smt. Usha Mathur (Arbitrator) and R. Rajamani (Arbitrator).
B. Direct the Presiding Arbitrator to file the Arbitral Record Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:28.03.2023 10:58:25 before this Court..."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that by way of the impugned award, the learned Arbitrator had rejected the claims of the petitioner/claimant. It is submitted that the findings of the learned Arbitrator for rejecting the claims of the petitioner/claimant in the impugned award are premised on two broad overarching erroneous findings. First, the learned Arbitrator has erroneously held that the petitioner/claimant was substantially responsible for the delay events. It is further submitted that as a sequel to the above finding, the learned Arbitrator, while erroneously accepting the preliminary objection raised by the respondent in view of Clause 8.3 of the General Conditions of the Contract, has erroneously held that the petitioner is barred from preferring claims for compensation/damages but only entitled for extension of the time period for completion, which was granted without any financial implication to either party.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that squarely within the scope of Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the petitioner/claimant seeks to lay siege to the impugned award on the basis of the instances of patent illegality as also contravention to public policy of India. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator has rendered the impugned award beyond the prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under Section 29A of the Act, 1996. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention at this juncture that vide order dated 21st July, 2022 in O.M.P. (Misc.) (Comm.) 96 of 2022 titled "ITD Cementation India Limited v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited', the period for passing and publishing the final award was extended Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:28.03.2023 10:58:25 by this Court by 6 months from 30th May, 2022. Accordingly, it is submitted before this Court that the learned Arbitrator ought to have rendered the impugned award by 30th November, 2022; however, as is stated hereinabove, the impugned award was rendered with a delay of one day beyond the prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under Section 29A of the Act. Hence, the impugned award has been passed when the mandate of the learned Arbitrator had expired and is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this short ground.

4. Heard.

5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Udit Seth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. He prays for some time to file reply/objection.

6. Let reply/objection be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

7. List on 8th May, 2023 for final hearing.

8. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to file written submissions alongwith convenience compilation also before the next date of hearing.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MARCH 24, 2023 Dy/@k Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:28.03.2023 10:58:25