Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Telecommunication Consultants India ... vs Mbl Infrastructure Ltd on 4 December, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 4901/2023)
TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA ..... APPELLANT(S)
LTD.
VERSUS
MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The challenge by the appellant, Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd., in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS)(COMM) No. 58/2021.
The said judgment and order was passed by the Division Bench in exercise of power under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961. Thereby, the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by a learned Judge under Section 34 of the 1996 Act on 10.02.2021 and restored the arbitral award dated 20.01.2020.
In the light of the legal position emanating from the Constitution Bench judgment in ‘Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Signature Not Verified Limited’2, the scope of interference by the Court Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.12.10 19:19:06 IST Reason: 1 For short “1996 Act” 2 (2025) 7 SCC 1 1 exercising power under Section 34 of the 1996 Act or Section 37 thereof now stands settled. Within the ambit of the principles laid down in Gayatri Balasamy (supra), we need to examine this case. The majority of the three-member arbitral tribunal held in favour of the respondent, MBL Infrastructure Ltd., insofar as Claim Nos. 1, 4 and 7 are concerned and the Counter Claim No. 2 set up by the appellant herein was also accepted.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a petition to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. A learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi, having considered the same, reduced certain amounts awarded to the respondent in relation to Claim Nos. 1 and 7, while the rest of the amounts payable under Claim Nos. 1, 4 and 7 were sustained.
On perusal of the judgment and order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Judge, we find that the learned senior counsel who had appeared for the appellant stated before the learned Judge that though the petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act mentioned several grounds, he would be assailing the impugned award only to the extent argued by him, as set out in paragraph Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the said judgment and order. Further, though the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant also mentioned more grounds, the learned Judge recorded that the same were not urged and he, therefore, did not find it necessary to advert to them.
The learned Judge also recorded that insofar as Claim No. 4 was concerned, none of the parties disputed the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal in sustaining the claim of the respondent to the 2 extent of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) and rejecting it to the extent of ₹32,20,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs twenty two thousand only). However, as Claim No. 1 erroneously included a sum of ₹40,20,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs twenty thousand only), which was actually attributable to Claim No. 4 and was dealt with separately, the learned Judge effected that deduction from the amount payable under Claim No. 1, that is, ₹5,14,48,210/- (Rupees five crore fourteen lakhs forty-eight thousand two hundred ten only). The sum of ₹40,20,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs twenty thousand only), which was wrongly included therein, and the additional sum of ₹59,61,715/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs sixty one thousand seven hundred fifteen only), which was attributable to Work Contract Tax, were accordingly deducted. These were, clearly, severable amounts.
In effect, the sum due and payable to the respondent under Claim No. 1 was quantified at ₹4,14,66,495/- (Rupees four crores fourteen lakhs sixty-six thousand four hundred ninety five only). As against Claim No. 4, a sum of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) was granted and a sum of ₹2,89,575/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty-nine thousand five seventy five only) was awarded against Claim No. 7. The total thereupon aggregated to ₹4,25,56,070/- (Rupees four crore twenty five lakhs fifty-six thousand seventy only), from which the counter claim amount of ₹3,82,653/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty two thousand six hundred fifty three only), awarded in favour of the appellant, was deducted, arriving at a net amount of ₹4,21,73,417/- (Rupees four crores twenty one lakhs seventy three thousand four hundred seventeen only). The said amount carried interest at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly 3 rests. The costs awarded by the arbitral tribunal also stood confirmed and we are informed that the costs so awarded were on the basis of the actuals incurred by the respondent, as evidenced by the statement of costs filed by the respondent before the arbitral tribunal.
Though several additional issues are sought to be addressed before us, we are of the opinion that it would not be open to this Court to sit in appeal over the arbitral award or look into issues which would involve interpretation of the contractual clauses, when a logical and possible interpretation thereof has been adopted by the arbitral tribunal.
Further, it is not open to the appellant to seek reopening of the issues which stood closed owing to the concessions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned Judge during the hearing of the petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. No steps were taken to correct the judgment and order of the learned Judge if it had recorded such observations wrongly and it is, therefore, too late in the day for the appellant to seek to assail such concessions by claiming that they were not made.
On the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned and sustainable judgment and order of the learned Judge dated 10.02.2021 modifying the arbitral award to the extent indicated hereinbefore.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
4 The decree for execution pursuant to the arbitral award would, therefore, be in terms of the judgment and order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Judge in exercise of power under Section 34 of the 1966 Act, along with the interest and costs awarded by the arbitral tribunal.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.....................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) .....................J. (ALOK ARADHE) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 04, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4901/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-12-2022 in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 58/2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 96041/2024 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) Date : 04-12-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General(N/P) Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Varma, AOR Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Adv.
Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR Ms. Kanu Garg, Adv.
Mr. Rachit Wadhwa, Adv.
Mr. Bankim Garg, Adv.
Mr. Aparajito Sen, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (PREETI SAXENA)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6
7