Delhi District Court
Also At vs M/S. Theovel Surveys on 10 February, 2023
DLND010050562016
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by :- MS. VIJETA SINGH RAWAT (DHJS)
Arbitration petition No. 14430/16
Wapcos Ltd.
76-C, Institutional area,
Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015
Also at
901, 9th Floor, Kailash Building
K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001
......... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Theovel Surveys
No.81, 1A Main Road,
Domlur Layout,
Banglore-560071
........ Respondent
Petition presented On : 02.07.2016
Arguments Concluded On : 05.12.2022
Judgment Pronounced On : 10.02.2023
Arbitration petition no. 14430/16
Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall decide the objections under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as 'The Act').
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged award order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Arbitrators whereby, it has been awarded as under:
'....a) The respondent do pay to the claimant total sum of Rs.34,04,936/- (Rs. Thirty Four Lacs, Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Six only) which includes interest upto the date of Award i.e. 19.03.2016. The said amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of the Award. In case the respondent fails to pay said amount within the period specified as above, the respondent shall be further liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the above said amount for the period from 20.03.2016 till the date awarded payment is made to the claimant by the respondent.
b) Award in original with all original documents shall remain with the Presiding Arbitrator for 120 days from the date of the Award, after which it shall be handed over to the claimant.'
3. Briefly stated that the facts are as under:
a) The petitioner is a government of India undertaking and had awarded the work of 'Topographical Survey, preparation of drawing/ maps and reports of survey work for part B of Kochhi city of Kerala State' for Sustainable Urban Development Project to the respondent vide contract no. WAP/CIC/Kerala-
Kochi/1/2007 dated 31.07.2007, (hereinafter, referred to as 'The Contract') for a sum of Rs.1,74,07,050/-. The duration for the work was 29.08.2007 to 28.02.2007.
Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 2 of 16
b) The work was eventually completed on 06.09.2008, as per the respondent as also evidenced by the completion certificate issued by the petitioner. However, the respondent filed a claim that despite completion of work as per specifications and issuance of completion certificate, the security deposit of Rs.12,25,534/- and earnest money deposit amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- had not been released. The respondent also sought refund of aforementioned amount with interest @18% per annum, Rs.3,00,000/- towards expenses of extra correction work alongwith interest @18% per annum and a claim of Rs.48,05,000/- towards additional work executed between August 2011 to May 2013 alongwith interest @18% per annum before the Bench.
c) Per contra, the petitioner filed a counter claim stating that the respondent did not execute the work on time and was unsystematic leaving defects on account of which, the work was got completed through third party, causing financial loss to the respondent and adversely impacted the reputation of the petitioner. Therefore, the following counter claims were raised:
'...i) Claim of Rs.10,90,734.50/- for contractual service through third party on the ground that the claimant (respondent herein) left the work incomplete as against the contractual obligations, forcing respondent (applicant herein) to carry out the additional activities to make up the deficiencies and incompleteness of the work done by the claimant (respondent herein).
ii) Claim of Rs.17,40,705/- for liquidated damages on the ground that time was the essence of the contract wherein the claimant (respondent herein) did not complete the work in time and left the work incomplete adhering to unprofessional manners which resulted in Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 3 of 16 incurrence of additional expenses by the respondent (applicant herein).
iii) Claim of interest of 18% per annum on amount of Rs.4,28,31,843/- withheld by the client of the respondent (applicant herein) due to unsatisfactory work.
iv) Claim of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for reputational loss of the respondent (applicant herein) due to unsatisfactory work.
v) Claim of Rs.10,00,000/- for the unnecessary and unwarranted litigation charges resulting from non-
compliance of the contractual obligation on the part of the claimant (respondent herein).'
d) The Ld. Arbitrators rejected claims no.2 & 3 of the respondent and all counter claims of the petitioner and merely allowed refund of security deposit and earnest money deposit but with interest.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. Perusal of the petition leads to a conclusion that the award is under challenge on the following broad grounds:
A) That the Ld. Arbitrators failed to correctly appreciate the term 'client' as mentioned in the contract. According to the petitioner, the 'client' was Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project (hereinafter, referred to as 'KSUDP') and the respondent was not oblivious of this since inception. The eventual approval of the work done was to come from KSUDP.
A reference has been made to a letter dated 13.12.2012 issued by the respondent to the petitioner requesting for forwarding of corrected data to the 'client'.
B) That the Ld. Arbitrators failed to appreciate that work was Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 4 of 16 not executed as per specifications and was left unfinished for which, reliance upon completion certificates dated 05.04.2010 and 16.01.2012 issued by the petitioner to the respondent is also erroneous as:
i) The contract did not provide for any such certificate and so it is not binding on the parties.
ii) The work had not been completed is evident from letter dated 13.12.2012 issued by the respondent to the petitioner.
iii) That as per e-mail dated 11.01.2012, the respondent requested for completion certificate dated 16.01.2012 which proves that work till than was continuing.
iv) That the completion certificates were issued at request of the respondent and was for exclusive purpose of qualification for future biding.
v) That the completion certificates did not indicate that the work was executed as per specifications and satisfactorily.
C) That by awarding interest, the Ld. Arbitrator acted beyond the scope of the agreement/ contract and so, is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon Steel Authority of India vs. J.C. Budhiraja, Govt. and Mining contractor AIR 1999 SC 3275, DSA Engineers (Bombay) vs. HUDCO 2004 (2) Arb LR 33 Delhi, Beebcon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. BHEL 2006 (1) Arb LR 1994 Delhi.
D) That the Ld. Arbitrators have wrongly concluded for levy of liquidated damages, it was required that the petitioner had Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 5 of 16 issued notice to the respondent. Reliance has been placed upon ONGC vs. Saw Pipes (2003) 5 SCC 705.
REPLY
5. Preliminary objections qua the maintainability of the petition has been taken on the grounds that the petition is barred by limitation and has not been filed by a duly authorized person.
6. As regards, the challenge to the award on merits, it is denied that the work was abandoned or left incomplete by the respondent. It is stated that on 06.09.2008, the respondent had informed the petitioner that it had completed the work. Relying upon completion certificate dated 05.04.2010, it is stated that work had been duly completed to the satisfaction of the petitioner who is the 'client' for the respondent. It is categorically declined that KSUDP was the 'client'. It is a specific stand taken by the respondent that the defects were only communicated on 17.05.2011 (which is after 2 years) and the contract between the petitioner and respondent was independent of the contract between the petitioner and KSUDP which was not binding upon the petitioner. It is stated that letter dated 04.08.2011 from the petitioner further clarifies the position as vide the same, the respondent was instructed alongwith M/s. Theodesh to co- ordinate the joining of base map of Kochhi Corporation. M/s Theodesh had been granted Part A of the contract bearing No. 07961/WAPCOS/KOCHI/07-08 dated 30.07.2007. It is stated Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 6 of 16 that no ground has been made out under Section 34 of The Act it is stated that the impugned award had rendered findings after careful evaluation of arguments and documentary as well as oral evidence which cannot be re-appreciated. It is stated that it has neither been shown that the award is based on no evidence or is contrary to evidence on record. It is also the case of the respondent that this Court cannot substitute its view for that of the Ld. Arbitrators and that the Ld. Arbitrators have also not exceeded their jurisdiction. It is also stated that the petition is barred by limitation and that the petition has not been filed by a duly authorized person. As regards imposition of interest, it is stated that the award cannot be interfered as clause 5(d) of the contract only restricted the officers of petitioners from awarding interest and is not binding upon the Ld. Arbitrators. It is stated that even otherwise such a clause is void. Reliance has been placed upon Union of India vs. N.K. Garg and Co. 224 (2015) DLT 668, Thermospares India vs. BHEL 130 (2006) DLT 382, Indian Hume Pipe Co. vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 (4) Arb LR 185 SC, Union of India vs SIEL Ltd. 2006 (86) DRJ 456, Abati Bezbaruah vs. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India AIR 2003 SC 1817, T.P. George vs. State of Kerala AIR 2001 SC 816, Ramnath International vs. State of U.P. AIR 1998 SC 367, Delhi Jal Board vs. Subhash Pipes Ltd. 2005 (2) Arb LR 213 Del, Angel Infin P. Ltd. vs. Echjay Industrial 2002 (3) Arb LR 110 Bom, Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. Governer, State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 189, Delhi Jal Board vs. Dev Raj Kataria 2016 (1) Arb LR 196 (Delhi), IOCL vs. Lloyd Steel Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 7 of 16 2007(4) Arb LR 84 Del and Haryana Telecom vs. UOI 2006 (2) Arb LR 293 Del.
ARGUMENTS
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds of appeal.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent also urged the grounds already mentioned in the reply. Additionally, relying upon Delhi Jal Board vs. Dev Raj Kataria 2016(1) Arb LR 196 (Delhi), it has been submitted that notice for levy of liquidated damages was mandatory. Also relying upon Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. vs. Union of India 1998(1) Arb LR 494 (Delhi) and DDA vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) & Anr. 2004 (3) Arb LR 548, it has been urged that the award passed by the technical experts should not be interfered with lightly.
REASONING AND APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD
9. The Court has considered the submissions and material on record.
10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the first issue that needs to be decided is whether the present petition u/s 34 of The Arbitration Act has been filed within limitation.
Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 8 of 16
11. Admittedly, the award is dated 19.03.2016 and as per records the petition has been filed on 01.07.2016 and was marked to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 02.07.2017.
12. Section 34(3) of The Arbitration Act stipulates as under :
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.
13. The stipulated period of 3 months would have expired during the summer vacation of the Court in the year 2016. Taking note of Section 4 of The Limitation Act, 1963 and judicial notice of the calender of High Court of Delhi for the year 2016, the petition is within limitation.
14. As regards the preliminary objection that the petition had not been instituted by a duly authorized agent of the petitioner, the same was abandoned during arguments.
15. Coming to the merits of the matter, before proceeding further, the Court deems it appropriate to recapitulate its powers under Section 34 of The Act.
Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 9 of 16
16. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shree Ganesh Petroleum, Rajgurunagar Civil Appeal no.837-838 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.35970-71 of 2016) decided by Supreme Court if India on 01.02.2022, the Court has held as under:
'....42. As held by this Court in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority2, cited by Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, Section 34 in conjunction with Section 5 of the 1996 Act makes it clear that an arbitral award that is governed by Part I of the 1996 Act, can only be set aside on grounds mentioned under Sections 34(2) and (3) of the said Act and not otherwise. The Court considering an application for setting aside an award, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act cannot look into the merits of the award except when the award is in conflict with the public policy of India as provided in Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act.
43. In Associate Builders (supra), this Court held that an award could be said to against the public policy of India in, inter alia, the following circumstances: -
(i) When an award is, on its face, in patent violation of a statutory provision.
(ii) When the Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal has failed to adopt a judicial approach in deciding the dispute.
(iii) When an award is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) When an award is unreasonable or perverse.
(v) When an award is patently illegal, which would include an award in patent contravention of any substantive law of India or in patent breach of the 1996 Act.
(vi) When an award is contrary to the interest of India, or against justice or morality, in the sense that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
44. An Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of contract, is bound to act in terms of the contract under which it is constituted. An award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract.
45. However, a distinction has to be drawn between failure to act in terms of a contract and an erroneous interpretation of the terms of a contract. An Arbitral Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 10 of 16 Tribunal is entitled to interpret the terms and conditions of a contract, while adjudicating a dispute. An error in interpretation of a contract in a case where there is valid and lawful submission of arbitral disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal is an error within jurisdiction.
46. The Court does not sit in appeal over the award made by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court does not ordinarily interfere with interpretation made by the Arbitral Tribunal of a contractual provision, unless such interpretation is patently unreasonable or perverse. Where a contractual provision is ambiguous or is capable of being interpreted in more ways than one, the Court cannot interfere with the arbitral award, only because the Court is of the opinion that another possible interpretation would have been a better one.
47. In Associate Builders (supra), this Court held that an award ignoring the terms of a contract would not be in public interest.'
17. Further, in Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 5627 of 2021, Arising out of SLP (C) no. 4115 of 2019 decided on 09.09.2021, it has been held as under :
"...22. A cumulative reading of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Rules, the legislative intent with which the 1996 Act is made, Section 5 and Section 34 of the 1996 Act would make it clear that judicial interference with the arbitral awards is limited to the grounds in Section
34. While deciding applications filed under Section 34 of the Act, courts are mandated to strictly act in accordance with and within the confines of Section 34, refraining from appreciation or re-appreciation of matters of fact as well as law. (See: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited. v. Northern Coal Field Limited.1, Bhaven Construction Through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. and Another 2 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran3 ).
23. For a better understanding of the role ascribed to 1 (2020) 2 SCC 455 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 8 3 (2012) 5 SCC 306 Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 11 of 16 courts in reviewing arbitral awards while considering applications filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment of this Court in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)4 wherein R.F. Nariman, J. has in clear terms delineated the limited area for judicial interference, taking into account the amendments brought about by the 2015 Amendment Act. The relevant passages of the judgment in Ssangyong (supra) are noted as under:-
"34. What is clear, therefore, is that the expression "public policy of India", whether contained in Section 34 or in Section 48, would now mean the "fundamental policy of Indian law" as explained in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49: (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] i.e. the fundamental policy of Indian law would be relegated to "Renusagar" understanding of this expression. This would necessarily mean that Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] expansion has been done away with. In short, Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] ,as explained in paras 28 and 29 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , would no longer obtain, as under the guise of interfering with an award on the ground that the arbitrator has not adopted a judicial approach, the Court's intervention would be on the merits of the award, which cannot be permitted post amendment. However, insofar as principles of natural justice are concerned, as contained in Sections 18 and 34(2) (a)(iii) of the 1996 Act, these continue to be grounds of challenge of an award, as is contained in para 30 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v.
DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] .
35. ........
36. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49: (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 4 (2019) 15 SCC 131 Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 12 of 16 204]. Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act only so that Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 :
(2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] , as understood in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , and paras 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.
37. Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-A), added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law. In short, what is not subsumed within "the fundamental policy of Indian law", namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground of patent illegality.
38. Secondly, it is also made clear that reappreciation of evidence, which is what an appellate court is permitted to do, cannot be permitted under the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
39. To elucidate, para 42.1 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , namely, a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award. Para 42.2 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , however, would remain, for if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes Section 31(3) of the 1996 Act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.
40. The change made in Section 28(3) by the Amendment Act really follows what is stated in paras 42.3 to 45 in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , namely, that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short, that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take. Also, if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction. This ground of challenge will now Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 13 of 16 fall within the new ground added under Section 34(2- A).
41. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , while no longer being a ground for challenge under "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse."
24. ....
25. Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression 'patent illegality'. Likewise, erroneous application of law cannot be categorised as patent illegality. In addition, contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression 'patent illegality'. What is prohibited is for courts to re-appreciate evidence to conclude that the award suffers from patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, as courts do not sit in appeal against the arbitral award. The permissible grounds for interference with a domestic award under Section 34(2-A) on the ground of patent illegality is when the arbitrator takes a view which is not even a possible one, or interprets a clause in the contract in such a manner which no fair-minded or reasonable person would, or if the arbitrator commits an error of jurisdiction by wandering outside the contract and dealing with matters not allotted to them. An arbitral award stating no reasons for its findings would make itself susceptible to challenge on this account. The conclusions of the arbitrator which are based on no evidence or have been arrived at by ignoring vital evidence are perverse and can be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Also, consideration of documents which are not supplied to the other party is a facet of perversity falling within the expression 'patent illegality'.
Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 14 of 16
18. The impugned award has been passed by a Bench of three Ld. Arbitrators who are also technical experts. The objection to the award qua Ld. Arbitrators failing to appreciate that the respondent did not execute the work within time and as per specification is purely factual and involves appreciation of evidence which is beyond the scope of this Court. Perusal of award and in specific findings in par agraphs no. 5.3.1 reveals that on the basis of evidence led by the parties, the technical experts have arrived at the conclusion that the work had been completed on 06.09.2008. It has not been shown that the Ld Arbitrators either did not consider the evidence on record or that their view is implausible. The Court cannot now be called upon to re-appreciate the evidence.
19. As regards the definition of 'client', the Ld. Arbitrators have interpreted the terms of the contract. Once again, the interpretation cannot be interfered with an account of erroneous interpretation of the contract.
20. As regards the objection that interest has been awarded beyond the terms of the agreement / contract, it is pertinent to observe that the award states as under :
"(A) The Respondent to pay to the Claimant total sum of Rs. 34,04,936/- (Rs. Thirty-four Lac Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only) which includes interest upto the date of Award i.e. 19.03.2016. The said amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of the Award. In case the Respondent fails to pay said amount within the period specified as above, the Respondent shall be further liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the above said Arbitration petition no. 14430/16 Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 15 of 16 amount for the period from 20.03.2016 till date awarded payment is made to the claimant by the Respondent:"
Thus, it can be seen that the Ld. Arbitrators consciously avoided imposition of cost before the stipulated period of release. Hence, there appears to be no infirmity even in that regard.
21. In view of the above discussions, the present arbitration petition is dismissed.
22. Arbitral award be sent back 23 . File be consigned to records.
Pronounced in open Court
on 10.02.2023 (Vijeta Singh Rawat)
Additional District Judge-01,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
Arbitration petition no. 14430/16
Wapcos Ltd Vs. Theovel Surveys. Page no. 16 of 16