Delhi District Court
M/S Telecommunications Consultants ... vs M/S Galaxy Developers on 16 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.07/2020
(Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers)
CNR No. DLSE01-000060-2020
M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.
TCIL Bhawan, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110 048.
.......Petitioner
Through:-Ms. Rashmi Malhotra and
Mr. Arnab Chanda, advocates.
Versus
M/s Galaxy Developers
Murli Bhawan, Awasthi Market,
Dal Bazar, Lashkar,
Gwalior (MP)-474 009.
......Respondent
Through:- Mr.Vineet Saxena, advocate
Date of filing of petition : 06.01.2020
Arguments heard on : 03.05.2025, 31.05.2025 & 18.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1.1 Petitioner M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL) has preferred the instant petition under section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') for setting aside arbitral award dated 05.09.2019 passed by learned Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration case bearing no.TCIL/MPRDA/JBL/MP-2024/ARB/2017-18/02 titled as Raj Kumar "M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL) vs. M/s Galaxy Tripathi Developers".
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:29 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 1 of 321.2 For avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that the petitioner in the present petition was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings while the respondent was respondent in the arbitration proceedings.
Facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under:-
Relationship between petitioner and the Madhya Rural Road Development Authority
2.1 Petitioner is a Government of India owned Engineering and Consultancy Company under the administrative control of Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication, Government of India. It is a premier telecommunication consultancy and engineering company which undertakes projects in all fields of telecommunications and civil constructions, including road constructions.
2.2 The Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority (in short 'MPRRDA') is a Government enterprise which deals with construction and maintenance of road and bridge works. In pursuance of its objectives under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (hereinafter to be referred as PMGSY), the MPRRDA issued a notice inviting Tender No.189 on 18.05.2007, from contractors on the Standard Schedule of Rate for road and bridge work with respect to construction and upgradation of several rural roads, including maintenance thereof for five years after construction. One of the said works involved construction and maintenance of roads in the District of Seoni, Madhya Pradesh, which was referred to as Package No.MP-3635.
2.3 In pursuance of the aforesaid, petitioner submitted its bid on Raj 05.06.2007 for execution of the Package No. MP-3635. The MPRRDA Kumar Tripathi awarded the said package contract to petitioner vide Letter of Acceptance Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 2 of 32 dated 23.06.2007. Subsequently, an agreement dated 07.07.2007 was executed between petitioner and MPRRDA, under the terms of which, the contract pertaining to Package No.3635 was awarded to petitioner at a contract price of Rs.4,34,22,940/- with a maintenance cost of Rs.19,51,117/- for five years after the completion of the construction work. The intended date of completion of the project was nine months from the date of commencement excluding the rainy season from 16th June to 16th September which made the said agreement executable within twelve months.
Relationship between petitioner and respondent 3.1 Post the award of contract, petitioner issued a notice inviting Tender bearing No. TCIL/05/NIT-II/05-06/Civil-RR/62 dated 24.05.2007, inviting applications from agencies experienced in road projects under the PMGSY's scheme or state highways and having construction plant and machinery, who would be interested to participate in working on any of the projects of MPRRDA under the PMGSY in association with the petitioner. 3.2 Respondent submitted its bid which was accepted by petitioner and accordingly, the contract was awarded to respondent under a pre-tender tie up vide work order bearing no. TCIL/PMGSY/MP/SEONI/3635/2007- 2008 dated 19.07.2007, with an estimated cost of work of Rs.3,91,41,455/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety-One Lakhs Forty-One Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty-Five Only). The intended time for completion of the project was 11 (eleven) months, including the rainy season. 3.3 Pursuant to aforesaid, a Memorandum of Understanding (in Raj short 'MOU') was entered into between petitioner and respondent to give Kumar Tripathi effect to the contract between the parties for construction, upgradation and Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:27 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 3 of 32 maintenance of roads in Seoni District, Madhya Pradesh under Project No. MP-3635. The said MOU entailed the terms and conditions governing the tender between the parties which were more or less on the same lines of the contract entered into between the petitioner and MPRRDA, specifically on the execution of work.
3.4 By entering into a sub-contract with petitioner, respondent also bound itself to the terms and conditions of the contract between petitioner and MPRRDA as provided for in the aforesaid MOU.
Factual Background having a bearing on the dispute 4.1 As per petitioner, the execution of Package No.MP-3635 entailed construction and upgradation of seven rural roads totaling to 17.601 kms. According to the terms and conditions of the contract and the aforesaid work order dated 19.07.2007, the date of completion of the project was 26.06.2008 and the defects liability period was to end on 26.06.2013, i.e. five years after completion of the project, as specified in the General Conditions of Contract (in short 'GCC') entered into between the petitioner and MPRRDA, which was also binding upon the respondent. 4.2 Petitioner avers that there were certain delays in the construction of roads by respondent, on account of which the work was completed in part and handed over to MPRRDA only on 31.07.2009, after which the completion of the project was duly certified. Thus, there was a delay of approximately 1 year and 1 month in handing over the completed works to MPRRDA. The said delay was solely attributable to respondent's Raj lackadaisical approach in the execution of the said project. The Completion Kumar Tripathi Certificate of the aforesaid roads was awarded to petitioner by the GM, Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:29 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 4 of 32 MPRRDA, PIU-Seoni on 24.08.2009 after the completed work was certified on 31.07.2009.
4.3 It is stated that on 24.08.2009, all the seven roads in the aforesaid package were fully constructed by the respondent, barring the road from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon measuring about 4.70 kms on account of the fact that out of the total length of 4.70 kms, respondent could only manage to construct 2.7 kms of road. The remaining 1.98 kms of the road stood incomplete as the permission to work in that portion could not be obtained by MPRRDA from the forest department.
4.4 The aforesaid Certificate of Completion dated 24.08.2009 contained a note to the effect that the said road from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon could only be completed upto Ch.2720 and that the portion from Ch.2720 to 4700 (1980 m) could not be constructed due to non-permission from the forest department. Further, after issuance of the completion certificate, petitioner also received 50% of security deposit as per the terms of the Agreement between the petitioner and MPRRDA from the GM, PIU, Seoni. 4.5 The Defect Liability period of 5 years began from the date of issuance of Completion Certificate. However, in 2010, the Forest Department granted permission to MPRRDA to work in the remaining portion of the road from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon, measuring 1.98 kms. Subsequently, the GM, PIU-Seoni issued a letter dated 25.05.2010 to petitioner requesting it to undertake work in the balance portion of the road, with the direction that the work should be undertaken under the same contract and with the assistance of the same agency, employed in the Raj aforesaid contract, i.e. the respondent.
Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:28 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 5 of 32 4.6 Petitioner forwarded MPRRDA's request to respondent as it was the agency responsible for carrying out execution of the project at Seoni, Madhya Pradesh. However, respondent declined to accept the request of MPRRDA as forwarded by petitioner on the ground that the project had been duly completed and certified on 31.07.2009 and thereafter, the respondent has demobilized all manpower/machinery from the site of the project. Therefore, it was not in a position to carry out the construction and upgradation of the balance portion of the work.
4.7 Vide letters dated 22.06.2010 and 05.08.2011 (Annexure-P/11), petitioner communicated to MPRRDA stand of respondent with regard to execution of balance portion of the work. Further, petitioner requested MPRRDA that as 50% of the security deposit has already been released by MPRRDA, MPRRDA should delete the aforesaid balance road from the scope of work of petitioner and issue the final bill as well as the maintenance bill for the last two years.
4.8 In view of the aforesaid, the GM, PIU-Seoni recommended deletion of balance portion of 1.98 km of road from the scope of work of petitioner. A similar recommendation was also forwarded by CGM, Jabalpur to CEO, MPRRDA vide letter dated 13.01.2010 (Annexure-P/12). The CGM, Jabalpur also recommended that the said balance portion be completed by inviting separate tenders. However, despite repeated requests and recommendations to MPRRDA as well as its officials, petitioner's requests were not heeded to and vide letters dated 30.06.2011, 08.07.2011 and 02.08.2011 (Annexure-P/13), the GM, PIU-Seoni, threatened of penal Raj action, if the aforesaid balance portion of 1.98 km is not taken up by Kumar Tripathi petitioner under the same contract.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:27 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 6 of 324.9 On being threatened with penal action, petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure-P/14) under Clause 24 of the General Conditions of the Contract to the CEO, MPRRDA. The Petitioner informed the CEO, MPRRDA of its inability to execute the balance portion of the work in the road from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon on the ground that subsequent to issuance of the completion certificate for the package on 24.08.2009, all the machinery, manpower and staff was demobilized from the region by the respondent. Petitioner further informed respondent's unwillingness to take up any additional work and also expressed its unwillingness to take up the additional work at the Standard Operating Rate (in short 'SOR') of the 7 th Phase, as on the date on which the permission was granted by the Forest Department, SOR of the 11th phase was going on and prices of all the items required for construction/upgradation of the balance work had inflated by 40%. The Petitioner requested the CEO to delete the balance work from the scope of work of Package No.MP-3635 and take other necessary action in order to prevent MPRRDA from taking penal action against petitioner. 4.10 In response to the aforesaid appeal, the GM, PIU-Seoni vide letter dated 27.08.2011 to the CEO, MPRRDA recommended that the aforesaid balance work be deleted from the scope of the Package No. MP-3635 and further, the said work be completed by invitation of separate tenders. Vide letter dated 11.05.2012, the CGM, Jabalpur also recommended that the aforesaid balance portion be executed through invitation of separate tenders.
4.11 Despite the aforesaid recommendations from the GM, PIU- Raj Seoni and the CGM, Jabalpur, the CGM, MPRRDA vide letter dated Kumar Tripathi 10.01.2013, directed the GM to compel the petitioner to complete the Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:27 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 7 of 32 remaining portion of the work under the original contract. Further, it was also stated that in the event, petitioner fails to complete that balance work, its contract would be terminated. The said order dated 10.01.2013 was communicated to the petitioner by the GM, PIU, Seoni, MPRRDA vide letter dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure-P/16), whereby it was forcefully asked to take up construction of the remaining portion of the work from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon within a week, failing which the contract would be terminated. 4.12 Upon receiving repeated threats of termination, petitioner filed a Second Appeal dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure-P/17) under Clause 24 of the GCC before the CEO, MPRRDA citing the same reasons as specified in the aforesaid First Appeal. However, before it could receive a response from the CEO, MPRRDA, a show cause notice dated 27.02.2013 under Clause 52 of the GCC was received by petitioner, on account of its failure to execute the balance work. The reasons for issuance of the said show cause notice were cited as partial execution of work and failure to achieve the prescribed milestones as provided for in the Contract Data to the GCC. Further, the said show cause notice also alleged breach of Clauses 52.2(c) and (k) of the GCC on part of petitioner.
4.13 The aforesaid show cause notice held the petitioner responsible for wrongful delay in the execution of aforesaid project and the slow progress in the work done on account of which the work could not be completed within the stipulated time. Thereafter, petitioner received a letter dated 08.05.2013 from the CEO, MPRRDA directing it to undertake the remaining portion of the work, failing which the MPRRDA will forthwith Raj terminate the aforesaid contract.
Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:28 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 8 of 32 4.14 Petitioner approached the Jabalpur High Court against the aforesaid show cause notice and the order of the CEO, MPRRDA and filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 5407/2013, seeking quashing of the aforesaid order and show cause notice. The MPRRDA put forth their objections stating that the order dated 27.02.2013 being in the nature of a show cause notice, does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of the petitioner.
4.15 Thereafter, the High Court of Jabalpur passed an order dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure-P/19) directing the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice of the MPRRDA. Further, MPRRDA was directed to dispose of the matter within 15 days of receiving a reply from the petitioner. 4.16 In accordance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court, petitioner vide letter dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure-P/20) replied to the show cause notice of MPRRDA, once again informing them of their inability to execute the balance portion of the work due to demobilization of the manpower and machinery by respondent after issuance of the completion certificate by MPRRDA. Further, petitioner also stated that the agreement did not contain any provision for additional work to be taken after awarding of completion certificate. Furthermore, petitioner brought it to the notice of the GM, MPRRDA the fact that the completion certification itself contained a clause pertaining to the non-completion of 1.98 km of forest portion from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon as due permission could not be obtained from the forest officials. The petitioner's stand was the MPRRDA had prior knowledge of non-completion of work in the forest portion which Raj was not objected to on the date of issuance of completion certificate and Kumar Tripathi therefore, it could not be challenged at this stage.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:31 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 9 of 324.17 However, the petitioner continued to receive letters from MPRRDA, demanding them to carry out the balance forest portion of the work. A letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-P/21) was issued to the petitioner by the GM, PIU, Seoni, wherein the petitioner was threatened with termination of the contract, if the balance portion of work was not executed by them under the same contract.
4.18 Owing to the aforesaid letters, petitioner was constrained to re- submit a reply to the show cause notice on 08.09.2016 (Annexure-P/22) to the CEO, MPRRDA requesting that separate tenders be invited for carrying out the balance portion of the work.
4.19 Petitioner submits that despite continued requests for issuance of separate tenders for executing the balance portion of the work, the GM, PIU, Seoni, MPRRDA in an arbitrary manner terminated the contract under Clause 52.1 of the Agreement vide a termination letter dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-P/23). The reasons for termination as mentioned in the letter included:-
"The failure of the claimant to complete the balance portion of the work of Sirkapur to Bhourgarh Road as per the instructions given by the CEO, MPRRDA.
The non-attendance of the defect liabilities during the Defect Liability period of 5 years following the completion of the project on 24/08/2009".
4.20 Further, the termination letter also contained provisions as to payment upon termination and Liquidated Damages, accruing from the Raj termination of the Contract as per the Agreement executed between the Kumar Tripathi parties. Petitioner resisted the termination of the contract as respondent Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 10 of 32 had expressed its inability to perform the balance portion of the work under the contract between it and MPRRDA.
4.21 It is submitted that as the petitioner had sub-contracted the work under the aforesaid project to respondent, under Clause 7 of the General Conditions of Contract, respondent was directly and solely responsible for the termination of the contract of the petitioner by MPRRDA, thus, making the respondent accountable for all the damages and liabilities accruing to the petitioner from the aforesaid termination of the contract.
4.22 Petitioner claims that respondent while submitting the bid for the tender was well aware that the terms and conditions of the agreement between it (petitioner) and MPRRDA would also be directly applicable and binding on respondent.
4.23 Petitioner alleged that since the beginning/commencement with the award of contract to respondent vide Work Order dated 19.07.2007, there were several lapses on part of respondent in the execution of project pertaining to the construction of roads in Seoni District, Madhya Pradesh. On account of the said lapses, petitioner was constrained to terminate the contract of respondent primarily on the following grounds:-
(i) Delay in completion of the Project work by the Respondent.
(ii) Failure of the respondent to maintain the roads and during the Defect Liability Period.
(iii) Non completion of the project by the respondent.
4.24 The dispute having arisen inter se between the parties, Raj petitioner vide letter dated 27.05.2016 requested the respondent to amicably Kumar Tripathi resolve the dispute, failing which, it would be constrained to invoke the Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:28 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 11 of 32 Arbitration clause under Clause 12 of the NIT and Clause 19 of the MOU. However, there was no response on behalf of respondent. Accordingly, vide its letter dated 05.12.2017, petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and subsequently, vide its letter dated 23.03.2018 appointed Sh. Anil Kumar Verma, Former Spl. Director General CPWD, as Sole Arbitrator, for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute inter se the parties. 4.25 The petitioner filed its statement of claim before learned Sole Arbitrator, whilst raising the following claims:-
I. Award a sum of Rs.10,86,932/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Two Only), towards expenditure incurred by the Claimant on maintenance works at the risk and cost of the respondent; II. Award a sum of Rs.1,40,736/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Six only) towards interest on advance; III. Award a sum of Rs.25,76,499/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Seventy- Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Only) as amount due towards liquidated damages arising from delay in completion of the Project; IV. Award a sum of Rs.16,36,673/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy-Three Only) towards amount paid by the Claimant as additional cost @ 20% of the Balance Work according to the General Conditions of Contract entered into between the Claimant and MPRRDA;
V. Award a sum of Rs.3,20,518/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighteen Only) towards the amount deducted by the MPRRDA from the final bill issued to the Claimant; Raj Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:31 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 12 of 32 VI. Award a sum of Rs.6,54,487/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Seven Only) towards royalty charges due and payable by the respondent to the Claimant; VII. Award interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.64,15,845/- (Rupees Sixty- Four Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-Five Only) from the date of institution of the present Statement of Claim till the date of award and future interest @ 24% per annum in the event respondent fails to pay the awarded sum from the date of the Arbitral Award till the actual date of remittance;
VIII. Award the cost of arbitration.
5.1 Respondent filed its statement of defence disputing the claim of petitioner. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respect contentions which was followed by final arguments. On culmination of proceedings, learned Sole Arbitrator passed the award on 05.09.2019 by arriving at the following conclusions:-
i. The Statement of Claim has been signed by Shri Sanjiv Kumar without any proper authority.
ii. The arbitration invoked by the claimant is barred by limitation. iii. Claimant is not entitled for any of its claims on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, contract provisions and in terms of law. iv. Counter claim of respondent is barred by Limitation and therefore, respondent is not entitled for the counter claim. v. Both the parties to bear their own cost.
5.2 Aggrieved by the impugned arbitral award dated 05.09.2019, Raj petitioner has filed the instant petition to set aside the same on the following Kumar Tripathi grounds:-Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:29 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 13 of 32
(i) The award passed by learned Sole Arbitrator is patiently illegal and in contravention of the provisions contained in The Limitation Act, 1963. The award is against the terms of the contract entered into between the parties.
Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by learned Sole Arbitrator in the impugned award are irrational, perverse and against the fundamental policies of Indian law.
(ii) The learned Sole Arbitrator while passing the arbitral award erred completely and wrongly came to the conclusion that the cause of action accrued on 30.07.2017 and erroneously held that since the arbitration proceedings commenced on 05.12.2017, the said arbitration proceedings were time barred.
Submissions of petitioner and respondent 6.1 It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the learned Sole Arbitrator totally overlooked the fact that MPRRDA had themselves terminated the contract of petitioner and had accordingly imposed liquidated damages to the petitioner only on 29.09.2016. In view thereof, the commencement of arbitration proceedings on 05.12.2017 was within the prescribed time, therefore, the said arbitration proceedings were maintainable.
6.2 Further, learned Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the contract awarded by the claimant/petitioner to respondent was on the basis of back to back contract on almost the same terms and conditions that existed between MPRRDA and the petitioner. Petitioner submits that MPRRDA had levied liquidated damages on it primarily on three grounds:-
Raj a) Non-completion of work within the scheduled period/extended period. Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:29 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 14 of 32
b) Non-attendance to the defects/non-maintenance of the roads during the defect liability period.
c) Failure to complete the project work.
6.3 Petitioner submits that the findings of learned Sole Arbitrator that the respondent is not liable for the aforesaid reasons for termination of petitioner's contract is patently illegal, against the basic notions of justice and against the terms of contract agreed between the parties. 7.1 Respondent filed reply to the petition, wherein, it denied the averments and assertions made in the petition.
7.2 In its reply, respondent contended that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who declared himself to be the Project Director of petitioner in the affidavit dated 31.05.2018 filed along with the statement of claim and also in the affidavit dated 01.10.2018 filed in support of petitioner's rejoinder, is not authorized by the Board Resolution dated 18.03.2015 to file the present petition for challenging the award dated 05.09.2019. 7.3 As per respondent, learned Arbitrator has rightly held that cause of action accrued to petitioner on 30.07.2014 and since the arbitration proceedings commenced on 05.12.2017 (Annexure-A31), the statement of claim filed by petitioner was barred by limitation. Termination of petitioner's contract has no bearing on the present arbitration since as per the terms and conditions (at page 217) as drafted by petitioner, the imposition of liquidated damages and termination are not back to back basis and are separate from the agreement executed between the petitioner and MPRRDA. Thus, the petitioner could only have imposed liquidated Raj damages at the time of extension of time. Imposition of liquidated damages Kumar Tripathi on the petitioner by MPRRDA have no bearing on the present dispute Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 15 of 32 between the parties to the arbitration. Similarly, termination of contract of petitioner by MPRRDA has no bearing on the present dispute since petitioner terminated the contract of respondent on 02.07.2012. 7.4 Respondent contends that the alleged grounds of termination are incorrect since it was not responsible for delay in completion of work. Respondent claims to have completed the work and it never applied for extension of time from petitioner. The completion certificate was issued to petitioner. Thus, the findings of the Arbitrator are based upon the provisions of contract executed between the parties and documentary evidence submitted by them.
7.5 Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that even petitioner has not alleged any delay on its part in extension applications (Annexure-R1 to R3). Petitioner at the time of accepting performance of execution of work from respondent, after the stipulated period of completion of work, did not intimate its intention of imposition of liquidated damages. Thus, the reasons for delay in completion of work by respondent are not attributable to respondent.
7.6 Respondent submits that after completion of work on 24.08.2009 (Annexure-A8), petitioner allowed it to demobilize its resources of men and machinery deployed during construction of road. Only those manpower and machinery remained which were required for maintenance of the roads. MPRRDA too accepted completion of all roads and issued completion certificate.
7.7 Respondent contends that after completion of work, it could not Raj be expected to wait indefinitely for permission from Forest Department. A Kumar Tripathi fact even accepted by petitioner which is evident from its letters dated Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:27 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 16 of 32 22.06.2010 (Annexure-A10), 05.08.2011, 18.08.2011 (Annexure-A13), 30.01.2013 (Annexure-A17), 11.08.2016 (Annexure-A23), 08.09.2016 (Annexure-A23). It is contended that it is the petitioner and not the respondent which refused to execute further work after receipt of completion certificate dated 24.08.2009.
7.8 Respondent further contends that petitioner did not forcefully challenged the matter of imposition of liquidated damages by MPRRDA nor did it forcefully defend itself when MPRRDA directed it to take up the balance work after issuance of completion certificate. The respondent cannot be saddled with incompetence of petitioner's officials in defending itself.
7.9 It is submitted that petitioner had subcontracted the whole work under package no.MP-3635 to respondent which is illegal under Clause-7.1 of GCC executed between petitioner and MPRRDA. Respondent contends that after termination of its contract by petitioner on 02.12.2012, it is not liable for happening of any event.
7.10 Respondent submits that after completion of work it earnestly executed maintenance work. All the defects notified by Engineer were repaired by respondent. The submission of bills by petitioner with MPRRDA for maintenance carried out by respondent too demonstrates that till the illegal termination of contract by petitioner, the respondent maintained the roads.
7.11 Respondent claims that the provisions of the MOU cannot be acted upon now since more than three years have elapsed after termination Raj of its contract by petitioner. The learned Arbitrator's conclusion that Kumar Tripathi respondent has not committed a breach of contract is borne out of record.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:29 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 17 of 32The award dated 05.09.2019 impugned by petitioner is not conflict with public policy of India. The said award is based upon proper appreciation of pleadings, evidence adduced and submissions made by parties. Petitioner has not demonstrated as to how the award is in conflict with public policy of India. Denying the averments and assertions of the petition, respondent prayed to dismiss the same.
Analysis and Findings 8.1 I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 8.2 It is well settled that restraint is to be shown by courts while examining validity of the arbitral awards. In the case of Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (2019) 20 SCC 1 the Court observed:-
"24. There is no dispute that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act limits a challenge to an award only on the grounds provided therein or as interpreted by various Courts. We need to be cognizant of the fact that arbitral awards should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the arbitral award. Section 34 is different in its approach and cannot be equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction. The mandate under section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum as provided under the law. If the Courts were to interfere with the arbitral award in the usual course on factual aspects, then the commercial wisdom behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand frustrated.
25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the Courts should not interfere Raj with an award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The Courts need to be Kumar cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tripathi Tribunal even if the reasoning provided in the award is Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:31 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 18 of 32 implied unless such award portrays perversity unpardonable under section 34 of the Arbitration Act."
8.3 Further, in the case of Delhi Skills Mission Society v. Samuel Foundation Charitable India Trust FAO (COMM) No.73/2024 decided on 30.07.2024, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that "It is also equally settled that the scope of interference u/s 34 of The Act is limited to the grounds as set out in sub- sections (2) and (2A) of section 34 of The Act. The court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence, adjudicate the disputes and supplant its opinion in place of that of The Arbitral Tribunal. The court is merely to examine whether the impugned award is vitiated on the ground of patent illegality or is vulnerable on any of the grounds as set out in section 34 (2) of The Act. The Arbitral Tribunal is the final adjudicator of all questions. Unless the Arbitral Tribunal's decision is found to be perverse and not a plausible view, the same would warrant no interference."
8.4 Further, in the case of Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Gaurav Enterprises AIR OnLine 2018 DEL 86, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:-
"18. Also, the scope of this Court is limited with regard to section 34 and 37 of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The position of law stands crystallized today, that findings, of fact as well as of law, of the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal are ordinarily not amenable to interference either under section 34 or section 37 of the Act. The scope of interference is only where the finding of the tribunal is either contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties, or ex facie, perverse, that interference by this Court is absolutely necessary. The arbitrator/tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under section 34 or 37 of the Act......."
8.5 Thus, with the aforesaid narrow scope of section 34 of The Raj Kumar Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court proposes to examine the Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 19 of 32 present petition as to whether the grounds/issues raised therein, warrant setting aside of the impugned arbitral award or not. 8.6 It must be borne in mind that the jurisdiction of this court u/s 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.
8.7 On perusal of the material on record, this court notes that the following three issues arise for determination in the present proceedings:-
(i) Whether the petition u/s 34 of the Act is barred by limitation?
(ii) Whether findings of learned Sole Arbitrator as to no breach of contract by respondent is perverse?
(iii) Whether the finding of learned Sole Arbitrator that Mr. Sanjiv Kumar did not hold appropriate authority to act on behalf of petitioner/claimant is tenable or not?
Issue no.1 9.1 In respect of the plea that the claims of petitioner are barred by limitation, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that learned Arbitral Tribunal erred in holding that limitation period accrues on 30.07.2014 i.e. (5 years from the date of completion on 31.07.2009) and not on 29.09.2016 when MPRRDA had terminated petitioner's contract and moreover, on 17.11.2015 when petitioner had raised its claim to the respondent. He further submitted that learned Tribunal also erred in holding that all the Raj claims are barred by limitation while ignoring the fact that MPRRDA had Kumar Tripathi terminated petitioner's contract on 29.09.2016 owing to the negligence on Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:28 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 20 of 32 the part of respondent, and as such claim for liquidated damages imposed upon petitioner by MPRRDA arose on 29.09.2016. Hence, the limitation clock would start from 29.09.2016. It was thus, submitted that the limitation counted from three years from that date i.e. 29.09.2016 would end on 28.09.2016. The reference to the arbitration proceedings was made by petitioner on 05.12.2017. Thus, the same was well within the period of limitation.
9.2 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the learned Arbitrator has rightly held that cause of action accrued on 30.07.2014 and since the arbitration proceedings commenced on 05.12.2017, the statement of claim filed by petitioner is barred by limitation. The provisions of the MOU cannot be acted upon now since more than three years have elapsed after termination of respondent's contract by petitioner. 9.3 In respect of limitation, learned Sole Arbitrator after appreciation of contentions of the parties in para no.35.10 as well in para no.36.6 of the impugned arbitral award has held that the arbitration is barred by limitation.
9.4 Admittedly, the contract for work was awarded by petitioner to respondent vide letter dated 19.07.2007. Respondent completed the construction work on 31.07.2009. Accordingly, the Completion Certificate dated 24.08.2009 was issued by MPRRDA to petitioner after the same was certified on 31.07.2009. The defect liability period of five years expired on 30.07.2014. Petitioner terminated the contract of respondent on 02.07.2012. Thus, the cause of action for invocation of arbitration proceedings accrued Raj on 30.07.2014. Petitioner invoked the arbitration on 05.12.2017 i.e. beyond Kumar Tripathi the period of three years. In view of the aforesaid position, the learned Sole Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:27 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 21 of 32 Arbitrator has rightly held that the arbitration initiated by petitioner on 05.12.2017 was barred by limitation.
9.5 This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings given by learned Sole Arbitrator. He has arrived at the conclusion that the arbitration was barred by limitation on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the documents presented by them. The said finding does not call for any interference by this court. The objection raised by petitioner in the said regard is rejected accordingly.
9.6 The plea of petitioner that fresh cause of action for filing the claims further arose when MPRRDA terminated its contract on 29.09.2016 owing to the negligence of respondent and the claim for liquidated damages imposed upon it by MPRRDA arose on 29.09.2016 itself which are recoverable from respondent in lieu of clause 2, 18 and 21 of MOU are without any basis or substance as the termination of petitioner's contract has no bearing with the present arbitration between the parties. The imposition of liquidated damages on petitioner by MPRRDA also does not have any relevance/bearing to decide the present dispute between the parties. Petitioner terminated the contract of respondent on 02.07.2012. MPRRDA terminated the respondent's contract on 29.09.2016. These two are separate contracts between different parties. Respondent has claimed that imposition of liquidated damages and termination are not back to back basis and are separate from the agreement executed between petitioner and MPRRDA. Thus, petitioner could only have imposed liquidated damages at the time of extension of time. It is an admitted fact that respondent never sought any Raj extension of time. Petitioner also at the time of termination of contract of Kumar Tripathi respondent did not impose any liquidated damages upon it . It is also matter Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:31 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 22 of 32 of fact that respondent completed the work assigned to it except construction of 1.98 Kms of road from Sirkapur to Bhourgaon and the same was duly certified by petitioner. The said portion of road was not completed not on account of negligence on the part of respondent but due to non-grant of permission by the Forest Department. Thus, respondent cannot be blamed for non-completion of entire work assigned to it.
Issue no.2 10.1 On the aspect of termination of contract of respondent by petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the findings that respondent is not liable for termination of petitioner's contract is patently illegal and against the basic notions of justice and terms of contract agreed between the parties. He submitted that learned Arbitral Tribunal ignored and overlooked that the termination letter dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure-P28) was rightly issued by petitioner to respondent on account of its failure to undertake effective and timely maintenance of roads at project site, failure to complete project within time and failure to complete the balance work. 10.2 Learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the termination letter dated 02.07.2012 was rightly issued by petitioner in lieu of breach of Clause-32 and 33 of GCC as well as Clause-21 of MOU. He ought to have also considered that termination letter dated 02.07.2012 was issued to respondent for failing to fulfill his contractual obligations to the entire satisfaction of both the petitioner and MPRRDA and as such causing a breach of contract as per Clause-5 of the MOU.
10.3 The learned Tribunal erred in concluding that the petitioner Raj while issuing the termination notice had not issued any show cause notice to Kumar Tripathi respondent, so as to give a chance to explain its position and also ignoring Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 23 of 32 and overlooking that there was per se no contractual obligation on the part of petitioner as per clauses of the contract or the MOU to issue a show cause notice prior to termination and moreover, even otherwise, petitioner before issuing the termination notice to respondent had evidently issued repeated letters thereby informing the respondent about incomplete and poor maintenance of work and also providing specific details about the defects and seeking timely rectification of the same, failing which, consequences would follow. Thus, the impugned final award suffers from patent illegality and is contrary to expressed terms of the contract. 10.4 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that after completion of work, respondent earnestly started maintenance of roads which is evident from the bills of monthly maintenance carried out by respondent. Respondent claims to have been maintaining the roads till illegal termination of contract by petitioner.
10.5 As per respondent, after completion of work on 24.08.2009, petitioner allowed it to demobilize its resources of men and machinery deployed during construction of road. Only those manpower and machinery remained which were required for maintenance of the roads. MPRRDA too accepted completion of all roads since Clause-48.1 of GCC stipulates "the contractor shall request the Engineer to issue a Certificate of completion of works, and the Engineer will do so upon deciding that the work is completed". Respondent contends that after issuance of completion certificate dated 24.08.2009, it was only obligated for maintenance of roads which it executed earnestly until illegal termination of contract on Raj 02.07.2012. Thereafter, respondent could not be expected to wait Kumar Tripathi indefinitely for permission from Forest Department.
Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:29 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 24 of 3210.6 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 10.7 In Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 131, it was held that an award passed by a technical expert is not meant to be scrutinized in the same manner as is the one prepared by a legally trained mind.
10.8 Further, in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project (2023) 9 SCC 85, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the view taken by the Arbitrator is a plausible view, no interference on the specified grounds is warranted.
10.9 In NHAI vs. ITD Cementation India Ltd. (2015) 14 SCC 21, the Court held as under:-
"25. It is thus well settled that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide. He is 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 contract. The court while considering challenge to an arbitral award does not sit in appeal over the findings and decisions unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do."
10.10 In Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 604, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there being even a slight possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the arbitral award, the Court must not interfere with the award since it does not act as an appellate court to entail a review of the Raj merits of the dispute.
Kumar 10.11 The reading of impugned award shows that the learned Sole Tripathi Digitally signed Arbitrator has considered the provisions of MOU, the terms and conditions by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:27 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 25 of 32 of tender between petitioner and respondent, evidence led by parties and the documents produced by them in support of their contentions. In para no.32.22, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded as under:-
"A. Time of completion of construction work will only be governed by condition No.1 of Letter of Acceptance/Award Letter at Page 70 and 71 of CD-1 and will be 11 months from the 7 th Day of the date of issue of letter dated 19.07.2007.
B. Liquidated Damages will be governed by condition No. 11 of Letter of Acceptance/Award Letter at Page 70 and 71 of CD-1 i.e. liquidity damages maximum 10% of contract value @ 2% per week shall be applicable for the delay in execution.
C. Termination of Contract will be governed by condition No.21 of 'TERMS AND CONDITIONS' (Page 81 of CD-1) forming part of MOU/Contract between Claimant and Respondent according to which, in case of failure of the tenderer to perform the contract as per the terms and conditions and the satisfaction of the TCIL, TCIL reserves the right to terminate the contract without assigning any reason and TCIL shall have a right to execute the work through any agency at the risk and cost of the contractor. (Emphasis supplied by me).
D. All other issues will be governed by the clauses of MOU (Page 72 to 75 of CD-1) and Terms and Conditions (Page 77 to 81 of CD-1) forming part of MOU/Contract.
E. The issues which are not covered by clauses of MOU (Page 72 to 75 of CD-1) and Terms and Conditions (Page 77 to 81 of CD-1) forming part of MOU, will be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract between Claimant and MPRRDA".
Raj 10.12 With respect to issue, as to whether the termination of contract Kumar Tripathi by petitioner was justified and tenable in terms of law considering facts and Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:26 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 26 of 32 circumstances of the case and terms & conditions of contract, learned Arbitrator held as under:-
"33.9 I am in agreement with the Respondent that after completion of work, the Respondent could not be expected to wait indefinitely for permission from Forest Department and this fact was even accepted by claimant which is evident from its letters dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-A/10 of CD1-), 05.08.2011 (Page-85 of CD1-), 18.08.2011 (Annexure-A/13 of CD1-),
11.08.2016 (Annexure-A/21 of CD1-), 08.09.2016 (Annexure- A/23 of CD1-).
33.10 I Find that the construction work was delayed by about 13 months. Claimant in its SOC has attributed this delay to the Respondent. Respondent, on the other hand denied it. I agree with the Respondent's contention that the Claimant has not alleged any delay on the part of the Respondent in the three extension applications submitted by the Claimant before MPRRDA (Annexure R-1, R-2, R-3 of RD-1). On detailed perusal of these Time Extension Applications, I find that none of the reasons mentioned by the Claimant therein are attributable to the Respondent.
33.11 I also find that, for this delay in completion of work, neither the Respondent applied for any extension of time nor the Claimant granted any extension of time. I find merit in the Respondent's contention that the Claimant, at the time of accepting performance of execution of work from Respondent, after the stipulated period of completion of construction work, did not intimate its intention of imposition of liquidated damages on Respondent and thus, reasons for delay in completion of construction work by Respondent are not attributable to the Respondent.
33.12 Claimant has cited various letters, written during execution of work, regarding slow progress. These letters have been denied by the Respondent. I have already decided as to which of these letters are allowed to be relied upon and which cannot be allowed in Table under Para 29.12 supra. Otherwise also, I agree with the Respondent that these are routine letters and in view of Claimant's own assertions in its Extension of Time Applications (R-1 to R-3), the reasons for delay are not attributable to the Respondent.
XXXX XXXX XXXX Raj 33.25 From the above, it is evident that the Claimant had not
incurred any amount towards maintenance of road during the Kumar period after 31.07.2009 (Date of completion of construction Tripathi work) and till 02.07.2012 (Date of termination of contract), while Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:31 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 27 of 32 the Claimant had preferred regular monthly maintenance bills and given certificates of regular maintenance being done which establishes that the maintenance during the said period was being done by the Respondent.
33.26. I agree with the Respondent's argument that Claimant has not been able to demonstrate that if the maintenance was not done by the Respondent than how the maintenance work was got executed for which it had submitted bills before the MPRRDA. In case, execution of maintenance work was done by TCIL itself, no evidence of execution of work is submitted by the Claimant, by way of any labour license and details of materials procured with bills etc. And in case execution of maintenance work was done by engaging other contractor, no evidence regarding issue of NIT, agreement with the other contractor has been submitted by the Claimant.
33.27. Even the Claimant's letters (Annexures A/26 Colly) written to the Respondent regarding deficiencies in the maintenance or the maintenance not being done, which have been denied by the Respondent and not allowed by me to be relied upon, has got no value in view of the fact that the Claimant itself had certified in its Monthly Inspection Reports that maintenance of the road was done as per terms of the contract and no other work was pending and the Claimant preferred monthly bills for the same. Claimant cannot be permitted to take one position before the MPRRDA and just diagonically opposite in the present proceedings on the same issue.
33.28 In view of above, I have no hesitation to conclude that the Respondent was maintaining roads till illegal termination of its contract by M/s TCIL. And termination of contract on the ground of non-maintenance of roads is not justified."
10.13 It is observed by this court that indisputably, the work was completed by respondent on 31.07.2009. Respondent never sought any extension during execution of contract. On completion of work by respondent, MPRRDA issued Completion Certificate dated 24.08.2009. In the Completion Certificate, it is noted that "Road Sirkapur to Bhaourgarh completed upto CH-2720 only. From CH-2720 to 4700 (1980 m) could not Raj be executed due to non-permission of forest". Thus, from the contents of Kumar the Completion Certificate itself, it is clear that the work was completed by Tripathi Digitally signed respondent and 1980 meters road could not be completed due to non- by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 28 of 32 permission of Forest Department. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, respondent cannot be blamed for non-execution of the work.
10.14 The Defect Liability Period of five years started from the date of completion of work i.e. 31.07.2009 as per Clause-32 of GCC. The said period expired on 30.07.2014. However, before the expiry of the Defect Liability Period, petitioner terminated the contract of respondent on 02.07.2012. It is not in dispute that respondent was not maintaining the roads till the date of termination of its contract. The bills of monthly maintenance carried out by respondent for the months of September, 2009 to July, 2012 for the maintenance period of August, 2009 to June, 2012 was submitted by petitioner with MPRRDA. Thus, it is amply clear that the respondent was maintaining the roads till the date of termination of contract by the petitioner.
10.15 Petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how the impugned award is in conflict with public policy of India. The impugned award dated 05.09.2019 passed by learned Arbitrator is based on proper appreciation of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and the submissions advanced by them.
10.16 It is well settled that Arbitrator is the ultimate master of quantity and quality of evidence, thus, a possible/plausible view of the Arbitrator even, if based on little evidence or that which does not measure up in quality to a trained mind could not be held to be invalid. Reliance is placed upon Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 Raj SCC 49. In this case, the Arbitrator has examined the facts, appreciated Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:30 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 29 of 32 evidence, interpreted the contract between the parties and reached a reasonable and possible view.
10.17 Applying the law on section 34 of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to the impugned arbitral award passed by learned Sole Arbitrator, since a review on merits of a dispute or re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible, which is precisely what the petitioner is seeking to do, renders the present petition untenable and is liable to be dismissed. 10.18 In respect of claim no.1 i.e. recovery of a sum of Rs.10,86,932/- towards expenditure incurred by petitioner on maintenance works at the risk and cost of respondent, learned Arbitrator after having considered the relevant provisions i.e. section 73 and 74 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 has held that there is no breach of contract by the respondent and the termination of contract of respondent by petitioner was not justified in terms of contract conditions and is not tenable in the terms of the law and accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to claim any damages from respondent. The other claims of petitioner have also been rejected by learned Arbitrator by giving sound reasoning and on appreciation of complete material on record presented before him by the parties. This Court is not sitting in appeal to re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties. It is well settled that the court while deciding the petition u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not act as an appellate authority.
Issue no.3 11.1 It has been categorically observed by learned Arbitrator in para Raj no.23.7 to 23.11 of the impugned arbitral award that the petitioner/claimant Kumar Tripathi has claimed that Mr. Sanjiv Kumar was authorized by the Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:28 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 30 of 32 petitioner/claimant to act on its behalf. However, petitioner/claimant has failed to submit any Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Sanjiv Kumar authorizing him to file statement of claim on behalf of TCIL. The Board Resolution relied upon by petitioner/claimant during the stage of evidence, which allegedly authorized Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, specifically mentioned that only GMs/CGMs/EDs of petitioner were empowered to file reply/documents, however, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar was 'Project Director' with petitioner/claimant. Therefore, it is correct to say that Mr. Sanjiv Kumar held no authority to sign the statement of claim submitted by petitioner/claimant during the arbitration proceedings. Reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Union of India v. Onkar Nath Bhalla & Sons AIR 2009 SC 3168, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that emphasis shall be laid upon strict compliance with authority proofs in arbitrations involving government entities.
12.1 In view of forgoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner has failed to meet the minimum threshold of section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the impugned award. It is only when the finding in an award passed by an Arbitrator "outrageously defies logic to suffer from vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse" as held in Associate Builders (supra), a challenge u/s 34 is maintainable. Mere failure of an Arbitral Tribunal to consider an argument or non-consideration of a clause of an agreement cannot be said to be an error which is in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law since the same does not amount to patent illegality as Raj held in NHAI (supra).
Kumar Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.09.16 OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020 16:05:31 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 31 of 32 12.2 For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the impugned award. The objections filed by petitioner are found to be devoid of any merit. The same are rejected accordingly.
13.1 Parties are left to bear their own cost.
14.1 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
Dated: 16.09.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-08,
South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Raj
Kumar
Tripathi
Digitally signed
by Raj Kumar
Tripathi
Date: 2025.09.16
OMP (Comm.) No.07/2020
16:05:28 +0530 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Developers) Page 32 of 32