Delhi High Court - Orders
Dedicated Freight Corridor ... vs Hcl Technologies Ltd on 2 March, 2023
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 70/2023
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA
LTD (DFCCIL) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Shailendra Singh,
Ms.Monica and Ms.Vandita Tiwari,
Advocates
versus
HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 02.03.2023 I.A. No. 3123/2023 (for exemption) Subject to the petitioner filing the clear, original and legible/typed copies of any dim documents on which the petitioner may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.
The application is disposed of.
O.M.P.(COMM) 70/2023 and I.A. No. 3122/2023
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"I. Set- Aside Arbitral Award Dated 20.10.2022, passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. D.K.Jain in the matter of DFCCIL and HCLT;Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:03.03.2023 19:12:47
II. Allow cost of the proceedings in favour of the Petitioner; and III. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner in interest of justice .
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal vide paragraphs 8.48 to 8.51 on Issue No. 6 are patently illegal in view of the facts and evidence on record and hence liable to be set aside under section 34(2)(b )(ii) and 34(2A) of the Act. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Arbitrator has not gone into the terms of the Contract or the evidence put forward by the parties, but has relied solely on his interpretation of one part of the Project Review Meeting dated 28th June, 2017 to award all the claims and reject all the counter- claims except the one.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the learned Sole Arbitrator wrongly proceeded on the basis that, parties had arrived at an agreement in the IT Project Review Meeting dated 28th June, 2017 and therefore bound by it and has ignored the fact that that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligation/ pending issues in compliance with the said Meeting. It is further submitted that the impugned award is bad in law as the learned Arbitrator went beyond the scope of the contractual terms. It is further submitted that the learned Arbitrator has judicially framed the issues/points to be determined between the parties, however he has refrained himself to answer them, by excessively relying on the meeting dated 28th June, 2017, which led to the passing of a highly prejudiced award against the Petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Issue notice of the petition and the accompanying application to the respondent. Mr.Sameer Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts notice and prayed for four weeks' time to file reply to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:03.03.2023 19:12:47 the petition and the accompanying application. Let the reply/objections be filed within a period of four weeks. The rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
6. List on 12th April, 2023.
7. Parties are directed to file their written submissions along with the convenience compilation before the next date of hearing.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MARCH 2, 2023 SV/AS Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:03.03.2023 19:12:47