Delhi District Court
Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd vs Now Known As Quippo Infrastructure Ltd on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020
(Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.)
CNR No. DLSE01-003404-2020
Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office:-
31, Lake Avenue,
PS Tollygunge, Kolkata,
West Bengal-700 026.
Branch Office at:-
No.4, Dr. Sundari Mohan Avenue,
Flat No.7, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700 014.
......Petitioner
Through:- Mr.Rohan Thawani and
Ms. Anshika Bajpai, advocates
Versus
Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd.
(Now known as Quippo Infrastrurcte Ltd.)
Corporate Office at:-
India Power Building,
Ground Floor, Block-EP,
Plot No.X-1, 2 and 3, Sector-V,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091.
......Respondent
Through:- Mr. Arjun Syal and
Digitally
signed by Mr. Rohit Kumar, advocates
Raj Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Kumar Date: Date of filing of petition : 03.10.2020
Tripathi 2025.09.23 Arguments concluded on : 19.08.2025
16:52:34
+0530 Date of Judgment : 20.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1.1 Petitioner has preferred the present petition u/s 34 of OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 1 of 16 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'The Act'), challenging the ex parte arbitral award dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitration case no.23/2012-13 arising out of alleged Agreement dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011.
Background of the case 2.1 Initially, petitioner filed the application u/s 34 of The Act (Annexure-P5) bearing Misc. Case No.298/2015 before the Court of learned District Judge, Alipore, West Bengal. Respondent filed an application for seeking dismissal of said Misc. Case No.298/2015 for want of jurisdiction on the ground that seat of arbitration was at New Delhi and, therefore, the Court in New Delhi has jurisdiction.
2.2 The application of respondent was allowed by learned District Judge vide order dated 13.08.2018. The petition u/s 34 of the Act was returned to petitioner with liberty to file the same before the court at New Delhi. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal bearing CAN No.10094/2018 u/s 37 of the Act before Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2019 allowed the appeal of petitioner and remanded the matter back to the court of learned District Judge, Alipore.
2.3 Subsequently, respondent filed SLP (C) No.11011 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging order dated Raj 14.02.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. Hon'ble Kumar Supreme Court disposed off the SLP on 29.04.2020 inter alia Tripathi Digitally signed restoring the order passed by the court of learned District Judge at by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 16:52:42 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 2 of 16 Alipore. Hon'ble Apex Court, as per petitioner, has precluded it from raising any submission or objection as to the venue of arbitration, considering the fact that it had failed to participate in the proceedings before learned Arbitrator and did not raise any submission that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. 2.4 Thus, after return of the petition, petitioner re-filed the present petition before this Court challenging the award dated 24.03.2015 in terms of judgment dated 29.04.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 11011/2019.
Factual Matrix of the case 3.1 Petitioner inter alia carries on business of developing deep foundations for various construction projects namely power plants, steel plants, housing projects, railway bridges etc. Respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act and is mainly engaged in the business of supplying construction equipments on rent along with related services, which also includes renting out Hydraulic Rig. 3.2 Petitioner and respondent had purportedly been in business together since 2010. Petitioner took on rent the hydraulic rigs from respondent and for that purpose, work orders were issued by petitioner to respondent.
3.3 Pursuant to negotiations and discussions between the parties, petitioner made advance payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent vide Demand Draft No.767732 dated 24.04.2010 and Raj 28.04.2010. Petitioner issued work order (Annexure-B) Kumar Tripathi containing terms and conditions for hire of Hydraulic rigs from Digitally signed respondent.
by Raj Kumar Tripathi 3.4 Disputes and difference arose between the parties. Date: 2025.09.23 16:52:50 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 3 of 16 Accordingly, respondent vide letter dated 02.03.2012 served upon the petitioner a notice invoking arbitration in furtherance of agreement signed on 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011 claiming dues to the tune of Rs.78,78,533/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. Respondent claimed to have appointed Sh. L.C. Jain, President, Consumer Forum (Retired) as Sole Arbitrator for conducting arbitration proceedings at New Delhi as per the rules and regulations of Construction Industry Arbitration Council (CIAC).
3.5 Petitioner by letter dated 15.03.2012 replied to the notice invoking arbitration dated 02.03.2012 denying the existence of any such arbitration agreements. Upon CIAC issuing the first notice of arbitration, petitioner opposed the same. The Sole Arbitrator passed an order dated 30.05.2012, wherein, he categorically held that the matter can be referred to arbitration as per clause 24.1 of the agreement dated 01.08.2010. The petitioner thereafter did not join the arbitration proceedings and filed T.S. No.189/2012 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah, West Bengal seeking nullity as to the agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011.
3.6 Parties have since been in long drawn litigations, wherein, they have approached from District Court up till the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the meanwhile, learned Sole Arbitrator passed an ex parte arbitral award dated 24.03.2015 allowing the claim of respondent/claimant. Vide the said award, learned Raj Arbitrator had accepted the claim of respondent, in its entirety, for Kumar Tripathi a sum of Rs.78,78,533/- along with interest @ 11% per annum as Digitally signed pendente lite from 02.03.2012 till the date of award i.e. by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 16:52:58 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 4 of 16 24.03.2014 and interest @ 11% per annum from 25.03.2015 till realization of the entire award amount.
3.7 Petitioner in compliance to order dated 29.04.2020 passed in SLP (C) No.11011/2019 has filed the present petition u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the ex parte award passed in arbitration case bearing No.23/2012- 13 arising out of agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011.
3.8 The preset petition has impugned the arbitral award on the ground that the agreements are products of fraud and manipulation/forgery on the part of respondent, also that the agreements are back dated and fabricated by respondent to claim right to appoint sole arbitrator of its choice. The petitioner further denies having entered into any such agreements with the respondent which contained an arbitration clause.
Submissions of the parties 4.1 The petitioner, by way of present petition, prays for setting aside the impugned ex parte award passed by learned Sole Arbitrator on multiple grounds. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the dispute is non-arbitrable as the underlying agreements are products of fraud and machination/manipulation/forgery on the part of respondent. He further submitted that the arbitration clause cannot exist in the absence of the agreement.
Raj 4.2 He further submitted that the impugned ex parte Kumar award ought to be set aside u/s 34 (2) (iv) of The Arbitration and Tripathi Conciliation Act, 1996 as the respondent has clubbed the claims Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 16:53:05 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 5 of 16 under all the four agreements and has sought for a composite award for the sum of Rs.78,78,533/- with an interest. He further argued that from the impugned award, it is not possible to discern which part of the award pertains to which corresponding agreement and the impugned award has erroneously clubbed together all the arbitration agreements. He further submitted that the award is unreasoned as lies no basis for awarding the claim and respondent's claim has been wrongfully admitted. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2017) 9 SC 729 & Padam Chand Kothari v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 138. 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the dispute is very well arbitrable as the agreements are neither backdated nor fabricated. The original agreements have already been duly examined by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah in T.S. No.189/2012. He further argued that petitioner had notice of arbitration proceedings yet actively restrained from participating therein.
5.2 Petitioner had right/opportunity to oppose the conjoint hearing of all the arbitration agreements, but kept sleeping upon his rights and thus, at this later stage has no right to contend the same. He further submitted that the award reflects application of judicial mind and is a totally reasoned decision. Relying upon Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, Raj 2014 SCC OnLine SC 937, he submitted that it is a settled law u/s Kumar 34 of the Act that the Court cannot look into the pure question of Tripathi facts to set aside the arbitral award. Further, as petitioner failed to Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 16:53:11 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 6 of 16 appear or contest the arbitration proceedings, entitled the arbitrator to proceed ex parte and thus, the award is based on materials then available on record and not on mere assumptions.
Analysis & Decision 6.1 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.
6.2 The following issues arise for determination in the present proceedings:-
(i) Whether the underlying agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011 are fabricated, backdated or products of fraud, rendering the dispute unarbitrable?
(ii) Whether the Arbitral Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and could not have consolidated the claims under four different agreements?
(iii) Whether the arbitration proceedings were conducted in haste and malafide, that caused prejudice to petitioner? 6.3 It is well settled that restraint is to be shown by the Court while examining validity of the arbitral awards. In Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC, the Hon'ble Court held as under:-
"28. This Court has in several other judgments interpreted Section 34 of the 1996 Act to stress on the restraint to be shown by courts while examining the validity of the arbitral awards. The limited grounds available to courts for annulment of arbitral awards are well known to legally trained minds. However, the difficulty arises in applying the well- Digitally established principles for interference to the facts of signed by each case that come up before the courts. There is a Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2025.09.23 awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual 16:53:19 +0530 aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 7 of 16 award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award. This approach would lead to corrosion of the object of the 1996 Act and the endeavours made to preserve this object, which is minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards. That apart, several judicial pronouncements of this Court would become a dead letter if arbitral awards are set aside by categorising them as perverse or patently illegal without appreciating the contours of the said expressions.
29. 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 (2A) 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 with the expression 'patent illegality'."
6.4 In Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project (2023) 9 SCC 85, the Court observed that the scope of Raj Kumar jurisdiction u/s 34 and section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal Tripathi appellate jurisdiction. It is well settled that Courts ought not to Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 16:53:26 +0530 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 8 of 16 interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner. 6.5 Further, in National Highway Authority of India v. Shree Jagannath Expressways (P) Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 706, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that it is well settled that this Court cannot re-appreciate/re-examine the evidence in proceedings u/s 34 of the A&C Act.
6.6 Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law in mind, the issue wise findings are given as under:-
Issue no.(1)
7.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had never signed the alleged agreements and the same are forged and fabricated. Further, the agreements are backdated and products of fraud, and thus, rendering the dispute non- arbitrable. He further argued that the arbitration clause cannot exist in the absence of the agreement, whereby the appointment of learned Sole Arbitrator was also on the basis of a non-existent arbitration agreement.
7.2 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011 bearing arbitration clause have not been forged and the petitioner, is at this later stage, making these bogus submissions. Respondent has in support of its submissions relied upon order of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah dated 26.05.2024 passed in Civil Suit bearing TS No.189/2012, wherein, the original agreements have already been examined and have been held to be valid and in existence.
Raj Kumar 7.3 Having considered the rival submissions of both the Tripathi parties and on perusal of material on record, this Court finds that Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 16:53:32 +0530 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 9 of 16 the agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011 are neither fabricated/backdated nor are the products of fraud.
7.4 In para no.31 of the petition (Annexure-P5), petitioner has stated that on 11.06.2012, it filed a suit bearing TS No.189/2012 in the Civil Court (Junior Division), Sealdah claiming the reliefs as mentioned in para no.(a) to (g). In the said suit, respondent filed an application u/s 5 and 8 of the Act with prayer for invocation of the arbitration clause and to return the plaint to petitioner. On 26.05.2014, the learned Court allowed the application of respondent with a direction to return the plaint. 7.5 A bare perusal of order dated 26.05.2014 passed in Civil Suit bearing TS No.189/2012 shows that the learned Civil Judge has examined the agreements in question. The learned Civil Judge has categorically decided the issue at hand as to the genuineness of the arbitration agreements and had found no discrepancies in the agreements those could corroborate with the contentions of the petitioner, that the agreements are products of fraud and backdated. The relevant paragraphs of the order of learned Civil Judge is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"The defendants has already stated that there are agreements between the parties containing arbitration clause. They referred the matter to arbitration in terms of the said arbitration clause to resolve payment related disputes. In support of their contention the defendants produced a series of original agreements, signed by both parties. I fail to Digitally signed by understand why the plaintiff signed in a Raj Raj Kumar Tripathi series of documents which they claim to be Kumar Date:
Tripathi 2025.09.23 non-existent. As stated earlier the plaintiff 16:53:40 +0530 failed to give any explanation regarding OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 10 of 16 falsity and forgery committed by the defendants in executing the said agreements. On perusal of the agreements, it transpires that all the agreements contain payment and usage terms and details. The agreements also contain arbitration clause i.c.w. any claim and any dispute regarding implementation, execution and interpretation or breach of the agreements between the parties.
Therefore, the dispute between the parties regarding payment is within the scope of arbitration clause. The defendants are justified in referring the matter to arbitration. Rather the plaintiff filed this suit even after having knowledge of arbitration proceedings."
7.6 In the instant petition, petitioner has alleged the non- existence of arbitration agreement and that the agreements are fabricated, backdated and products of fraud without any cogent and substantial reasoning or explanation as to how the alleged fabrication took place. Additionally, it is apposite to observe that the same issue has already been decided in entirety by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sealdah in TS No.189/2022. Thus, by application of doctrine of res judicata, petitioner is stopped from raising the same issue time and again.
7.7 In view of forgoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the view that the agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011 are neither fabricated, backdated or products of fraud. This issue is decided accordingly.
Issue no.(2) Raj 8.1 Petitioner has alleged that the appointment of learned Kumar Arbitrator was not in accordance with the purported arbitration Tripathi Digitally signed clause in the alleged agreements and the award is a nullity for by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 16:54:06 +0530 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 11 of 16 lack of jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the Arbitrator could not have consolidated the claims under four different agreements. 8.2 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned ex parte award ought to be set aside under section 34 (2) (iv) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the respondent has clubbed the claims under all the four agreements and sought for a composite award for the sum of Rs.78,78,533/- with an interest. He further submitted that from the impugned award, it is not possible to discern which part of the award pertains to which corresponding agreement and the impugned award has erroneously clubbed together all the arbitration agreements.
8.3 To refute the aforesaid submissions of petitioner, respondent argued that the arbitrator was appointed through CIAC in accordance with arbitration clause in the agreements. Petitioner despite being served with notices never challenged the appointment of arbitrator. Respondent further submitted that the petitioner despite having received multiple notices from the arbitrator, knowingly chose not to appear. He further argued that the arbitrator could have on its own consolidated the claims under four different agreements. To buttress the respondent's version, learned counsel for respondent invited attention of this court to the order dated 29.04.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8.4 Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.04.2020 passed in SLP (C) No.11011/19 has already rejected the objection Raj to the consolidation of the claims and venue of arbitration. For Kumar Tripathi ease of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted herein below:-
Digitally signed by Raj KumarTripathi "22. In the present case the arbitration in question is Date: 2025.09.23 16:54:14 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 12 of 16 a domestic and an institutional arbitration where CIAA was empowered to and did nominate the Arbitrator. It is not as if there were completely different mechanisms for appointment of Arbitrator in each of the agreements. The only distinction is that according to one of the agreements the venue was to be at Kolkata. The specification of "place of arbitration" may have special significance in an International Commercial Arbitration, where the "place of arbitration" may determine which curial law would apply. However, in the present case, the applicable substantive as well as curial law would be the same.
23. It was possible for the respondent to raise submissions that arbitration pertaining to each of the agreements be considered and dealt with separately.
It was also possible for him to contend that in respect of the agreement where the venue was agreed to be at Kolkata, the arbitration proceedings be conducted accordingly. Considering the facts that the respondent failed to participate in the proceedings before the Arbitrator and did not raise any submission that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction or that he was exceeding the scope of his authority, the respondent must be deemed to have waived all such objections.
24. In the circumstances, the respondent is now precluded from raising any submission or objection as to the venue of arbitration, the conclusion drawn by the Court at Alipore while dismissing Miscellaneous Case No.298 of 2015 was quite correct and did not call for any interference. The High Court, in our view, was in error in setting aside said Order. In any case, the fact that the cause title showed that the present appellant was otherwise amenable to the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court, could not be the decisive or determining criteria."
8.5 In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the petitioner raising similar issue for consideration by this Court is barred by the doctrine of res Raj Kumar judicata. Further, it has been categorically held by Hon'ble Tripathi Supreme Court that the petitioner is precluded from raising any Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 16:54:37 +0530 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 13 of 16 submission as to the venue of arbitration, whereof the petitioner raising the similarly placed submissions before this Court, is mere reagitating the issues having already been settled. The petitioner is now stopped from reagitating the similar issue before this Court.
8.6 For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is of the view that the Arbitral Tribunal did not lack jurisdiction and could have consolidated the claims under four different agreements. This issue is decided accordingly.
Issue no.3 9.1 Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the respondent unilaterally appointed an arbitrator, who acting ex parte and in bad faith, rushed to pass an arbitral award pending the appeal against the final order passed in TS No.189/2012 . The arbitral tribunal admitted the respondent's claim as made, in contradiction of section 25 of the Act, wrongly assuming that petitioner admitted the claim of respondent. He further submits that the award is unreasoned and there persists no bases for awarding the claim.
9.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the submission of petitioner as to arbitrator having acting ex parte and in bad faith, so as to rush to pass an award is actually incorrect. Learned Arbitrator commenced the proceedings only after the learned Civil Court, Sealdah, vide order dated 26.05.2014 dismissed TS No.189/2012 and referred to Raj the parties to arbitration.
Kumar 9.3 He further argued that petitioner's claim that the Tripathi Digitally signed arbitrator has acted during the pendency of an appeal is not valid by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.23 16:54:45 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 14 of 16 and legally tenable objection because no stay was granted on appeal against the order of dismissal of TS No.189/2012 and in fact the appeal was also eventually dismissed. He further submitted that learned Arbitrator granted ample opportunities to petitioner to participate in the arbitral proceedings but petitioner has advertently failed to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal. 9.4 Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and on perusal of material on record, this Court observes as under:-
a. In accordance with Section 25(c) of the Act, the failure of a party to appear or contest entitles the arbitrator to proceed ex-parte. Thus, in the present dispute at hand, it's the petitioner who advertently restrained itself from contesting the claim by putting its defence before the arbitral tribunal, whereof, kept on actively litigating at forums despite having notice of the arbitration proceedings. That, the petitioner is a vague litigant, who intentionally failed to appear before the arbitral tribunal. As a result thereof, the award is based on the materials then available on record and not the mere assumption that the petitioner has admitted the respondent's claim.
b. The objection of the petitioner as to the arbitral award being unreasoned and baseless is totally vague. That, section 31 (3) of the Act, requires reasons/grounds that are intelligible and adequate, not elaborate judgments. The award refers to relevant documents and provides a clear basis for the decision. The award clearly reflects application of judicial mind as the learned Arbitrator has duly considered the equipment rental agreements, invoices, the statement of account along with logs and thus, is not contrary to Section 31(3) of the Act.
c. That the petitioner has received multiple notices from the arbitrator, despite whereof, the petitioner Raj Kumar knowingly chose not to appear and contest its defence. Tripathi It is well settled that a party, who once opts out of proceedings cannot later challenge the award on Digitally signed by grounds those could have been raised earlier at the very Raj Kumar Tripathi first instance/opportunity.Date: 2025.09.23 16:54:51 +0530
In M/s Chandemani Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s Dawar Fabrics, 2014 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 15 of 16 SCC OnLine Del 1674,, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that no objection can be raised under section 34 of the Arbitration Act once the petitioner has failed to raise any such objections before the learned Arbitrator.
d. It must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrowly defined. This Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitral tribunal, nor does it act as a revisional authority. An arbitral award may be interfered with only on the limited grounds clearly spelt out in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 34 of the Act.
9.5 In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, the present petition filed by petitioner is found to be not sustainable within the scope and ambit of the provisions contained u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly.
9.6 Interim stay granted on the execution of award and enforced till date, if any shall stand vacated by effect of this order. 10.1 Parties are left to bear their own cost.
11.1 File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed Raj by Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Announced in the open court Kumar Date:
Dated: 20.09.2025 Tripathi 2025.09.23
16:55:02 +0530
(RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08,
South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020(Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 16 of 16