Delhi District Court
Delhi Transco Limited vs Rajesh Khanna on 19 March, 2026
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.19
17:38:37
+0530
DLND010042912017
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by :- SH. DHARMENDER RANA (DHJS)
Arbitration No. 2298/2017
Delhi Transco Limited.
Though its General Manager (Legal)
Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road,
New Delhi. ......... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Khanna,
Engineer & Contractor,
L-10/36, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027 ........ Respondent
Petition presented on : 06.08.2012
Arguments Concluded on : 25.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on : 19.03.2026
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 1 of 17
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA
RANA
Date:
2026.03.19
17:38:42 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant order I propose to dispose of a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as A & C Act) assailing the Award dated 29.03.2012.
2. Briefly stated: Sh. Rajesh Kumar (respondent herein) was awarded a work contract for development of 220 KV and 66 KV yard by Delhi Transco Ltd. (petitioner herein), vide Letter of Intent dated 04.03.2005 for a total consideration of Rs.89,42,857/-. The work a per the original agreement was stipulated to be completed within four months till 10.07.2005. However, there was some delay in completion of the work and the extension of time of 223 days was allowed by the petitioner to the respondent. The work was ultimately completed on 18.02.2006 and the final bill was raised on 12.06.2009 which came to be paid on 14.06.2009.
2.1. Aggrieved by the non-payment of amount under various heads viz.
(1) Non-payment of Rs.1,21,659.70 (2) Charges towards disposal of surplus earth evacuated and disposed;
(3) Charges towards shifting of electrical equipments, oil drums, scrap material etc. (4) Incorrect computation of measurements with respect to the Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:38:46 +0530 stone agreegate (5) Sum due towards extra charge incurred on account of use of 20 mm single size stone agreegate (6) Non-payment of escalation charges on building material (7) Incorrect computation of quantity of earth work carried out in Bay no. 11, 12 and 13 (8) Non-payment of damages due to demolition by other agencies (9) Non-payment of charges for extra centering and shuttering of post (10) Non-payment of the extra cement concrete post (11) Non-payment for P/L RCC in wall for oil pits and sump wells.
(12) Non-payment for P/L RCC in suspended floors for sump wells (13) Non-payment on account of idle labour. (14) Non-payment on account of idle technical and site staff (15) Non-payment for loss of profits alongwith the claim for interest and refund of the amount deducted by the petitioner towards labour cess.
2.2. Aggrieved by above, the respondent has invoked his claim before Ld. Arbitrator.
3. Ld. Arbitrator vide order dated 29.03.2012, partly allowed the claim of the respondent alongwith interest. Hence the instant petition.
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 3 of 17
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER DHARMENDER
RANA RANA
Date: 2026.03.19
17:38:50 +0530
3.1. The respective findings of the Ld. Arbitrator disposing off the claims is summarized here as under:-
Serial Claim Findings of
No. Ld. Arbitrator
1 Non-payment of Rs.1,21,659.70 Dismissed as
not pressed
2 Disposal of surplus earth evacuated and disposed. An amount of
Rs.9,845/- is
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
3 Shifting of electrical equipments, oil drums, scrap An amount of
material etc. Rs.12,500/- is
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
4 Incorrect computation of measurements with respect An amount of
to the stone agreegate Rs.44,119/- is
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
5 Extra charge incurred on account of use of 20 mm Claim
single size stone agreegate Rejected
6 Non-payment of escalation charges on building An amount of
material Rs.2,93,984/-
is awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
7 Incorrect computation of quantity of earth work Claim
carried out in Bay no. 11, 12 and 13 Rejected
8 Non-payment of damages due to demolition by other An amount of
agencies Rs.7,826/- is
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
9 Non-payment of charges for extra centering and An amount of
shuttering of post Rs.19,527/- is
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 4 of 17
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA
RANA
Date:
2026.03.19
17:38:55 +0530
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
10 Non-payment of the extra cement concrete post An amount of
Rs.8,865/- is
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
11 Non-payment for P/L RCC in wall for oil pits and An amount of
Rs.16,256/- is
sump wells.
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
12 Non-payment for P/L RCC in suspended floors for An amount of
Rs.3,508/- is
sump wells
awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
13 Non-payment on account of idle labour. An amount of
Rs.8,68,817/-
is awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
14 Non-payment on account of idle technical and site An amount of
staff Rs.1,75,200/-
is awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
15 Non-payment for loss of profits. An amount of
Rs.15,10,825/
is awarded to
the claimant
under this
head.
16 Additional claim for an amount of Rs.88720/- Rejected
being beyond
the scope of
arbitration.
17 Interest Interest
awarded
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 5 of 17
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER DHARMENDER
RANA RANA
Date: 2026.03.19
17:39:00 +0530
@12% p.a.
till the date of
payment.
18 Cost of Arbitration Awarded in
favour of the
claimant/
respondent.
4. The petitioner has filed a very detailed and elaborate petition. However, perhaps conscious of the settled legal position, counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the extent of challenging the Award on the following grounds:-
1. Impugned Award deserves to be set aside as Ld. Arbitrator has admitted a time barred claim.
2. Ld. Arbitrator has erred by awarding damages for breach of contract twice under multiple heads which is not permissible in law.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
6. Before adverting to the rival claims of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to remind itself of the scope of powers U/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. It has been held 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 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 Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:05 +0530 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 Another2 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran3 ).
23. For a better understanding of the role ascribed to 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 :
1 (2020) 2 SCC 455 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 8 3 (2012) 5 SCC 306 4 (2019) 15 SCC 131 Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:10 +0530 (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] .
35. It is important to notice that the ground for interference insofar as it concerns "interest of India" has since been deleted, and therefore, no longer obtains. Equally, the ground for interference on the basis that the award is in conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood as a conflict with the "most basic notions of morality or justice". This again would be in line with paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , as it is only such arbitral awards that shock the conscience of the court that can be set aside on this ground.
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) 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] Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:15 +0530 , 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 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."...
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 Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:19 +0530 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'...
7. Having discussed the law, let us now deal with the issues in seriatim.
ISSUE OF LIMITATION
8. It is forcefully argued by counsel for the petitioner that on 04.04.2006, a final bill was raised and accepted by the respondent and thus the cause of action arose on 04.04.2006 itself. It is submitted that the respondent invoked arbitration on 24.04.2009 therefore, the Ld. Arbitrator has erred by admitting a time barred claim.
8.1. Perusal of the record reflects that Delhi Transco Ltd. (petitioner herein and respondent before Ld. Arbitrator), has categorically admitted before the Ld. Arbitrator that the final bill has been paid on 14.06.2009 and Sh. Rajesh Khanna (respondent herein and claimant before Ld. Arbitrator) filed his claim before Ld. Arbitrator on 30.10.2009. Ld. Arbitrator has elaborately dealt with the issue of limitation and the relevant portion of the Award is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"3.4 It has been admitted by the respondent in its reply to statement of claim, wherein, it has been specifically stated Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:23 +0530 that the final bill has already been paid to the claimant on 14.06.2009 after making necessary deductions as per clause 35 and 35A of the Contract Agreement.
3.5 In view of the categorical admissions of the respondent that the final bill has been paid on 14.06.2009, the claim of the claimant filed on 30.10.2009 cannot be stated to be barred by law of limitation as the dispute has been raised within one month of the payment of final bill and statement of claim filed within five months of the payment of final bill by the respondent to the claimant. As regards the estopple, in reply to the objection of the respondent, the claimant has stated that the bill dated 04.04.2006 cannot be accepted as final bill because admittedly the final bill was prepared on 12.03.2009 and, admittedly, paid on 14.06.2009.
3.6 The contention of the claimant has got a sound basis as is evident from the fact that in the file notings filed by the respondent from page 9N to 18N starting from 14.07.2006 to 14.09.2006 clearly establish that the case of the claimant was being processed after preparing final bill of 04.04.2006. The notings from page 9N to 18N are spread over a period of two months starting from 14.07.2006 to 14.09.2006, wherein, the proposal for deviation, extension of time without levying of compensation, and approval of payment for extra works were being processed by the respondent on file. The claimant has referred to recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the matter of National Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Vs. G.C. Kanungo [II (2010) SLT 743] wherein it has been categorically held that till the time matter was alive for consideration, there was no finality in the matter. It is admitted that the payments have been made by the respondent to the claimant as late as June/September 2009, i.e., after reference was made to the Arbitrator.
3.7 The objection of respondent that the principle of estopple & waiver bars the claimants from raising these claims does not hold good in view of the actions of the respondent as Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:29 +0530 discussed above. No such acknowledgment of having accepted final payment has been stated to have been given by the claimant while accepting the final payment on 14.06.2009 from the respondent. Hence it is not proved on record that the claimant has waived his right to raise objections to the less payments made by the respondent to the claimant while accepting the payment of final bill."
8.2. Evidently, Ld. Arbitrator has conclusively opined that once the final bill was paid on 14.06.2009, claim of the respondent (claimant before Ld. Arbitrator) filed on 30.10.2009 cannot be said to be time barred. It is neither argued nor pleaded that the said factual finding is sans any evidence. Consequently, re-appreciation of evidence to disturb a factual finding is impermissible under Section 34 of A & C Act. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner on this count is found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
PAYMENT OF DAMAGES TWICE UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS
9. Counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that under Claim no.13, the respondent was paid for 'idle labour', under Claim no.14 for 'idle technical site staff' and thereafter, respondent was also paid under Claim no. 15 for 'loss of profits'. It is forcefully argued that having allowed the claim for 'idle labour' and 'idle technical site staff', the respondent could not have been paid for 'loss of profits'. It is submitted that loss of profit would essentially be governed by Section 73 of the Indian Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:33 +0530 Contract Act. It is submitted that once the respondent was duly paid for 'idle labour' and 'idle technical site staff', he could not have been awarded damages under the head of 'loss of profits'.
9.1. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent has supported the claim filed by the respondent and has argued that the Award calls for no interference. It is submitted that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of A & C Act is very limited.
9.2. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent that under Section 73 of the Contract Act, petitioner is liable to pay for the losses which actually arose in the usual course of things. It is submitted that the 'idle labour claim' is on account of reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred by the respondent, whereas, loss of expected profit arose when the contractor is deprived of the opportunity to earn profit because the petitioner delayed the project by failing to provide for work space. It is submitted that the 'loss of profit' is on account of loss of business opportunities. It is submitted that the loss of profit is on account of anticipated gain and not expenditure. It is submitted that 'idle labour charges' and loss of 'expected profits', due to delay in performing work, are two distinct and separate independent claims and are not overlapping as they contemplate different types of losses, suffered by the contractor due to breach by the employer. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in P.C. Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:38 +0530 Sharma & Co. Vs. DDA. He has also placed reliance upon certain other judgments viz. (1) National Highways Authority of India Versus DS Toll Roads Private limited (Delhi High Court) , 2023 DHC 6795; (2) Dwarka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr (1999) AIR SCW 663: (1999) AUR SC 1031; (3) Mcdermott International Inc Versus Burn Standard Co. Limited & Ors (2006) AIR SCW 3276; (4) A.T. Brij Paul Singh & Ors Versus State of Gujarat (1984) AIR SC 1703: (194) 2 SCALE 56; (5) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. SAW Pipes Limited AIR 2003 SC 2629: (2003) 5 SCC 705; (6) National Highways Authority Versus M/s ITD Cementation India Limited 2009 DHC 3114; (7) Asian Techs limited Versus Union of India, Civil Appeal no. 311-312 of 2003, DOD 07.09.2009. It is thus prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that there was a delay of about 268 days in completion of work and the time was extended by the petitioner. It is also established on record that the delay was on account of lapses attributable to the petitioner and not respondent.
10.1. Evidently, Ld. Arbitrator has allowed Claim no.6 of the respondent seeking 'price escalation' on the building material on account of delay, Claim no.13 seeking damages on account of 'idle labour', Claim no. 14 on account of 'idle technical site staff' and thereafter, allowed Claim no. 15 regarding anticipated 'loss of profit'.
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:42 +0530 10.2. The nub of the issue is whether Ld. Arbitrator was justified in awarding 'loss of profit' after awarding damages on account of price escalation, idle labour and idle technical site staff. In the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. N.K. Ahuja (2004) 4 SCALE 514 : (2004) 5 SCC 109 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed here as under:-
"24. Here when claim for escalation of wage bills and price for materials compensation has been paid and compensation for delay in the payment of the amount payable under the contract or for other extra works is to be paid with interest thereon, it is rather difficult for us to accept the proposition that in addition 15% of the total profit should be computed under the heading "Loss or Profit". It is not unusual for the contractors to claim loss of profit arising out of diminution in turnover on account of delay in the matter of completion of the work. What he should establish in such a situation is that had he received the amount due under the contract, he could have utilised the same for some other business in which he could have earned profit. Unless such a plea is raised and established, claim for loss of profits could not have been granted. In this case, no such material is available on record. In the absence of any evidence, the arbitrator could not have awarded the same. This aspect was very well settled in Sunleay (B) & Co. Ltd. v. Cunard White Star Ltd by the Court of Appeal in England. Therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 awarded to the claimant. "
(emphasis supplied) 10.3. Evidently, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that in order to succeed in a claim for loss of anticipated profits the respondent was required to establish that: Had he received the amount due under the contract, he could have Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.19 17:39:47 +0530 utilized the same for other businesses in which he could have earned profit. Sans any such plea being raised and established, claim for loss of profits could not have been granted. Admittedly, in the case at hand, it is not a case of breach of contract, rather a case of performance with some delay and thus, the respondent would be entitled for damages in accordance with Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act. The foundation of the respondent's claim essentially rests upon the delayed performance attributable to the petitioner. For the losses sustained on account of averred delay, Ld. Arbitrator has already awarded the losses sustained by the respondent on account of 'price escalation', 'idle labour' and 'idle technical site staff'. It is neither pleaded nor proved before Ld. Arbitrator to sustain an argument before this Court that respondent sustained any losses on account of non-deployment of his money, due under the contract, for some other business whereby he could have earned profit. In the absence of such a plea, the anticipated loss of profit could not have been awarded merely upon the asking of the respondent.
10.4. Consequently, finding of Ld. Arbitrator under Claim no. 15 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it suffers from patent illegality. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of All India Radio Vs. Unibros (2010) 115 DRJ 573 (Del):: 2010 SCC OnLine Del 880.
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.19 17:39:52 +0530
11. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, the Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act is partly allowed. The relief awarded under Claim no.15 towards loss of anticipated profits, being severable, is set aside. The reliefs Awarded under the remaining clauses remain intact. Ordered accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
13. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Arbitrator alongwith the Arbitration record.
Pronounced in open Court
on 19.03.2026 (Dharmender Rana)
District Judge-01,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
Arbitration No. 2298/17 Page no. 17 of 17