Delhi District Court
National Buildings Construction ... vs N.K. Construction Company on 4 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016)
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (LAW)
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. N.K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
377 KHADDARWALA, MUZZAFAR NAGAR
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
354, SARVGIAN KAIRANA 247774
MUZZAFAR NAGAR
2. M.K. VERMA
SOLE ARBITRATOR
EX. GENERAL MANAGER
NBCC LTD.
B150, SECTOR8, 1st FLOOR
DWARKA, NEW DELHI 110077
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 09.12.2015
First date before this court : 04.05.2017
Arguments concluded on : 20.03.2019
Date of Decision : 04.04.2019
Appearance: Shri Dhruv Sharma, counsel for petitioner
Shri Faiyaz Hasan, counsel for respondent
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 1 of 20 pages
National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner in this second round of litigation under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 has assailed the arbitral award dated 14.09.2015 of the sole arbitrator (respondent no. 2 herein), whereby the present petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 13,34,742/ with simple interest thereon at rate of 9% per annum from 17.01.2006 till the date of payment to the present respondent no. 1. Upon notice of proceedings, respondent no. 1 entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed reply. On behalf of arbitrator respondent no. 2, original records of arbitration proceedings were filed. I heard learned counsel for both parties who took me through the original arbitral records.
2. Briefly stated, circumstances as pleaded by petitioner leading to the present petition are as follows.
2.1 Petitioner, being a Central Public Sector Undertaking, owned by Government of India awarded construction work at Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dhoom Manikpur, Ghaziabad, UP vide agreement dated 25.07.1994 to the present respondent no. 1. By way of separate agreements and work orders, respondent no. 1 was also awarded additional external development work and separate work at site. On ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 2 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. account of nonpayment of certain dues related to the said project, disputes arose between the parties.
2.2 The work awarded to respondent no. 1 had to be completed within six months from the date of assignment but the same was completed some time in the year 1999. In the month of May 1999, respondent no. 1 furnished Final Bill, reference whereof was made in letter dated 07.10.1999 of respondent no. 1.
2.3 After verification and analysis of the Final Bill, by way of letter dated 18.12.2000 petitioner intimated respondent no. 1 that a sum of only Rs. 22,809.46 stood outstanding as against the exaggerated and inflated claim of respondent no. 1.
2.4 Clause 7 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) between the parties stipulated an obligation on the contractor respondent no. 1 to submit Final Bill within one month after completion of project. Further, according to clause 7 of GCC, it was obligatory on respondent no. 1 to claim the amount within a period of one month from letter dated 18.12.2000 of petitioner in case respondent no. 1 was interested in raising a dispute. But respondent no. 1 opted to sleep over the issue and thereby waived its right to agitate the claims except the admitted liability of Rs. 22,809.46.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 3 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. 2.5 Thereafter, vide application dated 14.09.2005 addressed to petitioner's CMD, respondent no. 1 invoked arbitration clause and sought reference of the claims to an arbitrator. Consequently, respondent no. 2 was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon claims of the present respondent no. 1.
2.6 In the arbitration proceedings, the present petitioner raised two grounds of limitation. Firstly, it was contended by the present petitioner that invocation of arbitration proceedings was time barred. Secondly, it was contended by the present petitioner that claims raised by the present respondent no. 1 were time barred vide clause 7 of GCC. However, subsequently, the present petitioner withdrew the objection related to invocation of arbitration proceedings in view of acknowledgment, which had the effect of making the period of limitation to run afresh.
2.7 But the learned arbitrator misconstrued the said withdrawal as to mean that all claims preferred by respondent no. 1 were admitted to be within limitation period. The present petitioner also filed a rectification application but the same was dismissed by learned arbitrator and Arbitral Award dated 21.01.2011 was passed in favour of the present respondent no. 1. In the said award, the learned arbitrator held the parties liable to bear their own costs.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 4 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. 2.8 Petitioner challenged the Arbitral Award dated 21.01.2011 by way of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act on the limited ground that the arbitrator had ignored the implications of clause 7 of GCC and thus exceeded his jurisdiction. The said petition under Section 34 of the Act was allowed vide order dated 01.04.2013 of the court of a learned Additional District Judge (ADJ03), South District, Saket Courts and matter was remanded to the learned arbitrator with the directions to return a finding as to whether the claims were time barred in view of clause 7 of GCC.
2.9 After remand of the matter, the learned arbitrator carried out further arbitration proceedings in which even written arguments were filed by petitioner and respondent no. 1. The said remanded arbitral proceedings culminated into the Arbitral Award dated 14.09.2015. But despite specific directions, whereby the previous Award was set aside and case was remanded, learned arbitrator did not deal with the question as to whether the claims raised by respondent no. 1 were barred vide under clause 7 of GCC.
2.10 Hence, the present objection petition under Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, assailing the Arbitral Award dated 14.09.2015.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 5 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
3. In reply to the petition, the present respondent no. 1 pleaded as follows.
3.1 The present petition is not maintainable since the court while deciding the objections under Section 34 of the Act does not sit as a court of appeal. Since no error of law has been cited by petitioner, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
3.2 The objections pleaded by the petitioner are nothing but the submissions made before the arbitrator and the same having been dealt with on merits by the arbitrator in the impugned award, the petition is liable to be dismissed, as the court under Section 34 of the Act cannot reassess the evidence.
3.3 It is not correct on the part of petitioner to say that learned arbitrator ignored clause 7 of GCC while passing the impugned award.
3.4 Respondent no. 1 disputed the sustainability of legal grounds pleaded by petitioner and contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. During final arguments, both sides took me through their respective case as set up above.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 6 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. 4.1 Learned counsel for petitioner argued that in terms with clause 7 of GCC, respondent no. 1 had to submit disputed claims by June 1999 i.e. within one month of Final Bill, but for the first time the dispute was raised only in the year 2005; that learned arbitrator ignored clause 7 of GCC and entertained stale claims. It was argued by counsel for petitioner that the reasoning given by the learned arbitrator that petitioner did not give measurements was perverse as had it been so, respondent no. 1 would not have been able to give Final Bill. It was argued that the previous award dated 21.01.2011 had been set aside under Section 34 of the Act and matter had been remanded with specific direction to deal with limitation period for raising the claims in the light of clause 7 of GCC but in the impugned award, learned arbitrator repeated the same error by ignoring clause 7. Learned counsel for petitioner also referred to contradictory findings in the previous award and the presently impugned award in an effort to establish that the impugned award shocks judicial conscience. It was also argued on behalf of petitioner that the impugned award is bad in law because out of vengeance, learned arbitrator imposed cost of Rs. 2,00,000/ on the present petitioner which are punitive in nature.
4.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supported the impugned award and contended that this court under Section 34 of the Act cannot examine the factual matrix. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 took me through the relevant portions of the ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 7 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. impugned award, pointing out that before the learned arbitrator, the present petitioner had taken stand contrary to the stand taken before the court of learned ADJ03, South District, Saket Courts.
4.3 In rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for petitioner admitted that neither Final Bill nor even Measurement Book is available with either side but submitted that respondent no. 1 cannot resile from his own case that Final Bill was prepared in May 1999.
5. In nutshell, according to petitioner, despite clear directions in judgment dated 01.04.2013 of learned ADJ03, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the previous arbitral award dated 21.01.2011 had been set aside, the learned arbitrator did not adjudicate upon the solitary objection of petitioner that claims raised by the present respondent no. 1 were time barred vide clause 7 of GCC. What is to be seen is as to whether the learned arbitrator has dealt with the said objection and if so, the extent to which this court can interfere while proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
6. At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly traverse through the legal position related to the scope and extent of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 8 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. 6.1 The scope of judicial review of an arbitral award is akin to review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the decision of bodies, where it is a settled principle of law that judicial review is of the decision making process and not of the decision itself on merits and the same cannot be converted into an appeal. Even Section 34 (2) (a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 amply clarifies the grounds of challenge on the lines of violation of principles of natural justice in making of the award or invalidity of the arbitral agreement and non arbitrability of disputes arbitrated and composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure being not in accordance with the agreement between the parties. None of the legislated grounds permits to challenge an arbitral award on merits by way of fresh appreciation of evidence.
6.2 In the case of Associate Builders vs DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :
"It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying his public policy test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. Thus, an award based on little evidence or on evidence which does not measure up in quality to a trained legal mind would not be held to be invalid on this score. Once it is found that arbitrator's approach is not arbitrary or capricious, then he is the last word on facts." (emphasis supplied) ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 9 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. 6.3 In the case of Delhi Development Authority vs Bhardwaj Brothers, MANU/DE/1753/2014, a division bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed thus :
"It cannot also be lost sight of that nonconferring of finality on the arbitral awards not only affects the speed and expense of arbitration but also has a more subtle consequences of extensive judicial review changing the nature of the arbitral process to an even greater extent. If arbitration becomes simply another level of decision making, subject to judicial review on merits, arbitrators may begin to decide cases and write opinions in such a way as to insulate their awards against judicial reversal producing opinions that parrot the appropriate statutory standards in conclusory terms, but suffer from a lack of reasoned analysis. Such a shift from the arbitral model in which decision makers are free to focus solely on the case before them rather than on the case as it might appear to an appellate court, to the administrative model, in which decision makers are often concerned primarily with building a record for review, in my opinion would substantially undercut the ability of arbitrators to successfully resolve disputes. The courts therefore have no business weighing the merits of the grievance, considering whether there is equity in a particular claim or determining whether there is particular language in the written instrument which will support the claim. The agreement is to submit all grievances to arbitration, not merely those which the court may deem meritorious. The courts if start undertaking to determine the merits of the grievance, would be usurping the function which under the Arbitration Act, 1996 is entrusted to the ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 10 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
arbitration tribunal. This plenary review by the courts of the merits would make meaningless the provisions that the arbitral award is final, for in reality it would almost never be final".
6.4 In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs M/s Dewan Chand Ram Saran, Civil Appeal No. 3905/12 decided on 25.04.2012 by the bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held thus :
"29. In any case, assuming that clause 9.3 was capable of two interpretations, the view taken by the arbitrator was clearly a possible if not a plausible one. It is not possible to say that the arbitrator had traveled outside his jurisdiction, or that the view taken by him was against the terms of contract. That being the position, the High Court had no reason to interfere with the award and substitute its view in place of the interpretation accepted by the arbitrator. The legal position in this behalf has been summarized in paragraph 18 of the judgment of this court in SAIL vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd. (supra) and which has been referred to above. Similar view has been taken later on Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. vs ONGC Ltd. reported in [2010 (11) SCC 296] to which one of us (Gokhale J.) was a party. The observations in paragraph 43 thereof are instructive in this behalf. This paragraph 43 reads as follows :
43. The umpire has considered the fact situation and placed a construction on the clauses of the agreement which according to him was the correct one. One may at the highest say that one ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 11 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
would have preferred another construction of Clause 17.3 but that cannot make the award in any way perverse. Nor can one substitute one's own view in such a situation, in place of the one taken by the umpire, which would amount to sitting in appeal. As held by this Court in Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing Corpn*. The Court while considering challenge to arbitral award does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the arbitrator, which is what the High Court has practically done in this matter. The umpire is legitimately entitled to take the view which he holds to be the correct one after considering the material before him and after interpreting the provisions of the agreement. If he does so the decision of the umpire has to be accepted as final and binding. *[2009 (5) SCC 142] (emphasis supplied) 6.5 Besides, in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/ 0080/2015, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 63 in which it was held that an error by the arbitrator related to interpretation of contract is an error within his jurisdiction and is not an error on the face of the award and is not amenable to corrections by the courts. It was further held that the legal position is no longer res integra that the arbitrator having been made final arbiter of resolution of disputes between the parties, the award is not open to challenge on the ground ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 12 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. that arbitrator reached at a wrong conclusion. Traversing through various judicial pronouncements, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if we were to start analyzing the contract between the parties and interpreting the terms and conditions thereof and which will necessarily have to be in the light of the contemporaneous conduct of the parties, it will be nothing else than sitting in appeal over the arbitral award and that is not permissible.
7. Falling back to the present case, since one of the arguments of respondent no. 1 is that petitioner did not disclose complete clause 7 of GCC before the court of learned ADJ03, for ready reference, Clause 7 of General Condition of Contract (GCC) is reproduced as follows :
"No payment shall be made for a work estimated to cost rupees five thousand or less till after the whole of the work shall have been completed and certificate of completion given. But in the case of work estimated to cost more than rupees five thousand, the contractor shall, on submitting the bill be entitled to receive a monthly payment proportionate to the part thereof then executed to the satisfaction of the Engineer Incharge, whose certificate of the sum so payable shall be final and conclusive against the contractor. But all such intermediate payments shall be regarded as payments by way of advance against the final payment only and not as payments for works actually done and completed and shall not preclude the requiring of bad, unsound and imperfect or unskilled work to be removed and taken away and reconstructed or reerected or be considered as an admission of the due performance of the contract of any part thereof in any respect or the accruing of any claim nor shall it conclude, determine or affect in any ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 13 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
way of powers of the Engineer Incharge under these conditions or any of them as to final settlement and adjustment of the accounts or in any other way vary or affect the contract. The Final Bill shall be submitted by the contractor within one month of the date fixed for completion of the work or of the date of the certificate of completion furnished by the Engineer Incharge and payment shall be made within three months if the amount of the contract plus that of additional items is upto Rs. 2 lakhs and in six months if the same exceeds Rs. 2 lakhs of the submission on such bill. If there shall be any dispute about any item or items of the work then the undisputed item or items shall be paid within the said period of three months or six months as the case may be. The contractor shall submit a list of the disputed items within 30 days from the disallowance thereof and if he fails to do so, his claim shall be deemed to have been fully waived and absolutely extinguished.
Whenever there is likely to be delay in recording detailed measurements for making a running payment in the case of residential buildings, advance payments without detailed measurements for work done (other than foundation and finishing items) upto (a) lintel level (including sunshade etc) and (b) slab level for each floor worked out at 75% of the tendered rates may be made in the running account bills by the Engineer Incharge in his discretion on the basis of a certificate from the Unit Incharge to the effect that the work has been completed upto level in question.
The advance payments so allowed shall be adjusted in the subsequent running bills by taking detailed measurements thereof. Final Bill shall be made only on the basis of detailed measurements".
8. Stand taken by the petitioner is that in letter dated 07.10.1999 (page 34 of paperbook) respondent no. 1 admitted that Final ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 14 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. Bill was prepared in May 1999 and that being so, in view of clause 7 of GCC, claim over and above Rs. 22,809.46 should have been raised by respondent no. 1 by June 2000 but the claim was raised much later in the year 2005 by way of arbitration proceedings. Therefore, claim raised by respondent no. 1 was time barred vide clause 7 of GCC. Further, according to petitioner, even letter dated 18.12.2000 (page 35 of paperbook) by which claim of Rs. 22,809.46 was allowed ought to have been challenged within one month vide clause 7 of GCC but the same was not done, therefore, the claim raised by respondent no. 1 was time barred vide clause 7 of GCC.
9. Admittedly, neither before the learned arbitrator nor even before this court, Final Bill and/or the Measurement Book could be produced by either side. Claim of petitioner qua preparation of Final Bill is only by way of inference drawn from above mentioned letters.
10. In the impugned award, learned arbitrator observed that taking of detailed measurements was a condition precedent to prepare Final Bill vide clause 7 of GCC and that clause 8A of GCC, which stipulates mode and manner of taking measurements, casts an obligation on the Engineer Incharge of NBCC to issue notice to the contractor before proceeding with the exercise of taking measurements, but no such notice was issued to respondent no. 1 nor any details of measurements were sent to respondent no. 1, which prevented respondent no. 1 from ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 15 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. submitting Final Bill.
11. In other words, on one hand is the inference of existence of Final Bill drawn by the petitioner from letters dated 07.10.1999 and 18.12.2000 and on the other hand is the appreciation of material on record by the learned arbitrator to arrive at a finding that since neither the Final Bill nor the Measurement Book nor even any notice contemplated by clause 8A of GCC could be produced by petitioner, it is not possible to accept that measurements were taken and Final Bill was prepared.
12. Letter dated 07.10.1999 of respondent no. 1, which is the petitioner's source of inference that Final Bill had been prepared needs to be examined. Contents of letter dated 07.10.1999 are reproduced below :
"To, The Chief Engineer, N.D. Zone, P.M.D., N.B.C.C., New Delhi Re: Pending bills of Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dhoom and Baghra Dear Sir, We have to state that in the meeting held number of times in your office, last being on 19.08.99, which were attended by A.E (T) also, you were pleased to instruct the concerned officers to credit our bills, earnest money deposit and bank guarantee to our ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 16 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
ledger, after releasing the same.
We are sorry to say that about two month has passed and no action to this effect has been taken so far, whereas our bills were prepared in May 1999 itself. We have been suffering very badly financially and mentally also on this account.
We once again request you to kindly credit all our bills, earnest money deposit and Bank Guarantee to our Ledger as early as possible, preferably within ten days from the receipt of this letter.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for N.K. Construction company, CC - Unit Incharge, Dhoom"
As would be obvious, letter dated 07.10.1999 did not make even a whisper, from which an inference could be drawn that Final Bill had been prepared. By way of the said letter, respondent no. 1 only highlighted delays in payments and even according to that letter what was prepared by May 1999 was multiple bills and not the Final Bill. Final Bill had to be prepared only after the Engineer Incharge of petitioner took measurements, which could be done only after issuance of notice to respondent no. 1, but as mentioned above, neither the Measurement Book nor any such notice could be produced by petitioner which reflects that no measurements were taken and consequently no Final Bill was prepared.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 17 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
13. As regards the other letter, which is dated 18.12.2000, addressed by the petitioner to respondent no. 1, thereby declaring its liability to be only of Rs. 22,809.46, in the impugned award learned arbitrator has also referred to letters dated 18.12.2000, 11.06.2003 and 19.09.2003 for arriving at a conclusion that the parties were in the correspondence for making payment to respondent no.1 till 19.09.2003 and at that stage, petitioner informed respondent no. 1 that payment could not be made due to some investigation being conducted by its vigilance department. This view taken by the learned arbitrator to repel the objection related to clause 7 of GCC also cannot be interfered with because that is a possible view on facts and learned arbitrator cannot be said to have traveled beyond his jurisdiction in taking this view.
14. In other words, the inference drawn by learned arbitrator in the impugned award cannot be labeled as perverse, liable to be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. As mentioned above, it is the decision making process and not the decision itself on merits that can be tested by this court under Section 34 of the Act.
15. As regards imposition of cost in the impugned award, merely because in the previous award dated 21.01.2011 no cost was imposed, the imposition of cost in the impugned award cannot be called punitive, much less a vitiation of the impugned award. Section 31(8) of ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 18 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors. the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 contemplates that costs of arbitration have to be fixed by the arbtiral tribunal unless otherwise agreed by the parties and while awarding costs, the arbitral tribunal has to specify the party entitled to receive cost, the party liable to pay cost, the amount of cost or method of determining that amount and the manner in which the cost has to be paid. It is nobody's case that the contract involved in the present case contained any provision to take away from the arbitrator the power of awarding cost.
16. No other challenge was raised against the impugned award during arguments on behalf of petitioner. Across the entire rounds of arbitral and judicial proceedings, computation of the amount claimed by respondent no. 1 as payable by petitioner has not been challenged.
17. There is no allegation in the present case that the learned arbitrator did not adopt a judicial approach or acted in violation of jus naturale. It is also nobody's case that the learned arbitrator has not acted bona fide or has not dealt with the subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner or that the decision of the learned arbitrator was actuated by any extraneous consideration. No perversity or irrationality in the award has been made out. It also cannot be treated as a case of nonapplication of mind by learned arbitrator.
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 19 of 20 pages National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.
18. Therefore, I am unable to find any ground on which the impugned Arbitral Award dated 14.09.2015 could be set aside under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, so the same is upheld. The objection petition is held meritless and the same is dismissed.
19. File be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court on
this 04th day of April, 2019 (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
District & Sessions Judge
South East, Saket Courts
Digitally signed
by GIRISH New Delhi 04.04.2019 (a)
KATHPALIA
GIRISH
Date:
KATHPALIA 2019.04.05
15:11:01
+0530
ARBITRATION No. 757/2015 (20481/2016) Page 20 of 20 pages
National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs N.K. Construction Company & Ors.