Delhi District Court
M/S Mn Automobile Pvt. Ltd vs Indraprastha Gas Limited on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
OMP (COMM) No. 60/22
In the matter of:
M/s MN Automobile Private Limited
[Formerly known as M/s Sikka Automobile Pvt. Ltd.]
Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Naveen Prakash Aggarwal
Having its registered office at B-88/1, Mayapuri Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110064.
............Petitioner
Versus
Indraprastha Gas Limited
Through its Chairman/ Managing Director
Having its Registered Office at: - Plot No. 4, Community Centre,
Sector 9, R K Puram, New Delhi-110022.
........Respondent
Date of institution : 16.11.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 01.08.2025
Date of judgment : 27.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Award dated 09.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
2. It is stated that the impugned award dated 09.07.2022 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator is patently illegal, inconsistent, perverse and in conflict with the public policy of India as is evident on the face Digitally signed by OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 lal lal singh M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Date: Page 1 of 26 singh 2025.09.27 16:21:15 +0530 of the impugned award. It is contended that Ld. Arbitrator in the impugned award has totally ignored the pleadings submitted, evidence presented and arguments advanced by the petitioner/claimant. It is stated that despite admitting the case of the petitioner on merit, the observation of the Ld. Arbitrator that the petitioner/claimant has failed to prove the losses and damages is completely unfounded. The impugned award is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality, justice and the fundamental policy of Indian law and consequently, it requires to be set aside.
3. It is stated that the petitioner approached the respondent and requested for the grant of the PNG connection to the premises of the petitioner i.e. B-8811, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi. Upon this, the respondent directed the petitioner to submit a formal application with all necessary details as per the standard format of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner took immediate steps and duly submitted an application for PNG connection at its workshop with the respondent. Consequently, in response to the said request the respondent sent a copy of the Gas Sale Agreement (hereinafter "the GSA") and other documents vide email dated 26.09.2018 to the petitioner. It is averred that, on 28.09.2018 itself the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents including the signed gas sale agreement at the head office of the respondent at IGL Bhawan, New Delhi, alongwith applicable fees. Further, the petitioner also registered their due protest at the late steps taken by the respondent in sending the necessary documents. It is submitted that the petitioner vide letter OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally signed by M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal singh Page 2 of 26 lal Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:21:28 +0530 dated 04.10.2018 informed the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) about the application submitted by the petitioner for the installation of the PNG with the respondent. Thus, in response to a communication by DPCC, the petitioner vide its letter dated 29.11.2018 again informed the DPCC that petitioner had already applied for the PNG connection with the respondent and that petitioner is waiting for PNG connection to get installed by the respondent. It is further averred that after issuance of said reply and in view of the pressing circumstances and the proposed penalty from the side of DPCC in case of violation of its directions, the petitioner also fervently followed up with the concerned officials of the respondent with respect to the installation of the PNG connection by the respondent. It is submitted that despite the regular follow-ups by the petitioner on the given customer care numbers on the website of the respondent, they were always turned unattended/unheard and it seemed that none of the officials of the respondent were really concerned with the installation of the connections.
4. It is further submitted that vide notification dated 14.12.2018 DPCC, in exercise of powers conferred upon it, under section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1918 issued closure direction against the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the reason given for such directions was as follows:
And whereas, as per the list provided by IGL, you neither switched over to PNG nor have registered with IGL for the PNG conversion till date.OMP (Comm) No. 60/22
M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 3 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:21:37 +0530 It is contended that the petitioner was shocked and surprised after receiving the aforementioned notification given the fact that PNG connection was duly applied by the petitioner. Further, on 18.12.2018, the petitioner again personally visited the Head Office of the respondent inquiring about the status of its file/application for the connection. The petitioner was shocked to know that the file application of the petitioner has not been processed even till then i.e from 30.09.2018 to 18.12.2018, for nearly 2.5 months. It is further submitted that, upon the protest and objection raised by the petitioners, respondent immediately issued a Business Partner Number (hereinafter "the BP No.") to the petitioner by email on the same day i.e. 18.12.2018. The petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2018 specifically informed the DPCC about the BP number allotted to the petitioner by the respondent. Thereafter, on 28.12.2018, electricity connection of the premises of the petitioner was disconnected on the pretext that PNG connection was not applied or installed at petitioner's premises yet. On inquiring with the officials of DPCC, the petitioner came to know that no such BP number was allotted to the petitioner.
The petitioner was completely shocked by the information received from DPCC and petitioner visited the Head Office of the respondent on 29.12.2018 and informed officials of the respondent that electricity connection was disconnected at petitioner's premises due to the fact that no BP number has been allotted to petitioner with regard to application submitted by the petitioner for PNG connection. Thereafter, respondent vide email dated 30.12.2018 informed the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited signed byPage 4 of 26 lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:21:54 +0530 petitioner that their PNG connection has been registered and earlier BP number that was allotted to petitioner was wrongly given and new BP number has been allotted to petitioner in lieu of the earlier BP number. Further, vide letter dated 30.12.2018, the petitioner informed DPCC about the actual facts of the matter and gross negligence and wrongdoings of respondent. It was only after numerous visits, representations and requests that the order of disconnection of petitioner's electricity connection was revoked vide notification dated 02.01.2019 issued by DPCC. Petitioner contended that due to the gross negligence and illegal acts of the respondent, the electricity and water connection at the premises of the petitioner was disconnected, which resulted in complete halt of business at the premises of the petitioner between morning of 28.12.2018 to evening of 02.01.2019, thereby causing huge losses and damages on account of loss of business as well in terms of goodwill, public image and reputation.
The petitioner also sent a legal notice dated 19.03.2019, inter alia stating the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and demanded the compensation on account of the loss of goodwill, public image and reputation. It is further submitted that in reply to the said legal notice, dated 13.05.2019, respondent in para 6, have categorically admitted the fact that there has been some error on its part in generating the BP number to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has challenged the Impugned Award amongst other grounds on the ground that the Impugned Award passed by the Ld. Arbitrator is patently illegal, perverse and inconsistent, OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally signed by M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal lal singh Page 5 of 26 Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:22:05 +0530 consequently being in conflict with the public policy of India. The patently illegality is apparent from the face of the Impugned Award. Consequently, it requires to be set aside. The Impugned Award contravenes the fundamental policy of Indian Law. It does not take into account Petitioner's pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record and the applicable provisions of law, and is in conflict with the most basic notions of justice and morality. The manner in which the Impugned Award has been passed by the Ld. Arbitrator by going beyond the pleadings, evidence, submissions and arguments made by the parties, ignoring the oral and documentary material on record and in fact going contrary to the undisputed/admitted pleadings and arguments, clearly shows that the award suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the award. The impugned award is also challenged contending that the findings arrived at by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in the Impugned Award are inconsistent and contrary to each other and the Impugned Award is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. It is contended that Ld. Arbitrator wrongly held that the GSA signed between the parties came into force on 29.12.2018 even when there was cogent material on record in form of admission by the respondent itself that the said agreement was executed much prior to the said date. The Sole Arbitrator further failed to appreciate that the position of law in the cases of standard form contracts. It is contended that Ld. Arbitrator wrongly held that the petitioner never pleaded that the GSA was a standard form contract or it was in force on 28.09.2018. It is further submitted that the GSA being standard form OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally signed by M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal lal singh Page 6 of 26 Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:22:16 +0530 contract, came into force when the signed copy along with the other documents were submitted at the head office of the respondent on 28.09.2018 by the petitioner, which was duly recognized by the officials of the respondent. Not processing of the application did not mean non-signing of the agreement. Signing of the agreement was only part of many formalities which were required for the processing of the application. In this case the processing merely meant the giving of the registration number/BP number. It is contended that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has drawn conclusions in the Impugned Award based on mere conjectures and surmises, in the absence of any materials being placed on record or any pleadings, evidence or arguments.
Further, Ld. Arbitrator had wrongly held that there was no implied term in the GSA obligating the respondent to inform the DPCC about the pendency of the petitioner's application for PNG connection. Ld. Arbitrator had wrongly held that the respondent was not in breach of an implied term. It is submitted that such conclusion by the Ld. Arbitrator was against the pleadings on record. Ld. Arbitrator wrongly disallowed the claims of the petitioner towards the loss of business and loss of profit.
6. The impugned award is also challenged on the ground that the Ld. Arbitrator erred by not relying upon the CA's certificate to prove the losses and damages incurred by the petitioner as a Chartered Accountant is the best possible person/expert/ professionally qualified person to quantify / certify such losses/ damages. It is not the case that there was no calculation sheet as the same was referred in the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited signed byPage 7 of 26 lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:22:33 +0530 certificate itself. Merely, non-filing of the calculation sheet cannot be the reason to completely discredit the certificate of a reputed professional / expert on the subject and disallow all the claims of the petitioner. It is contended that it is a peculiar case where the Ld. Arbitrator accepted the case of the petitioner on merit but refused to award any amount merely for the reason of not filing of the calculation sheet referred to in the certificate of the CA. This has not only wasted the valuable time and resources of the petitioner but has also resulted in travesty of justice where despite proving its case no money was awarded to the petitioner by the Ld. Tribunal. Ld. Arbitrator despite appreciating the certificate of the Chartered Accountant did not consider it for the quantification of the losses and damages suffered by the petitioner on erroneous and arbitrary grounds. Ld. Arbitrator wrongly held that the CA's certificate annexed by the petitioner does not prove the losses incurred by the petitioner. Ld. Arbitrator failed to give any justification for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the loss of business and profit in wake of clear finding that the respondent had in fact provided the wrong BP number to the petitioner which had resulted in shutdown in the premises of the petitioner from 28.12.2018 to 02.01.2019. Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that the CA's certificate should have given the weight of expert evidence thereby constituting sufficient proof for the claims of damages. Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that the credibility of the witness, produced by the respondent for limited cross examination, was completely demolished during cross examination by the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 lal M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited singh Page 8 of 26 Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:22:42 +0530 petitioner. Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that the respondent never expressed any desire to cross examine the witnesses of the petitioner and therefore the evidence filed by the petitioner remained unrebutted and hence proven. Ld. Arbitrator failed to consider that the petitioner was ready and willing to produce further witnesses and/or documents if so required. It is stated that the calculation sheet was duly referred in the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is contended that the Impugned Award is patently illegal, contrary to the contractual provision, completely arbitrary, based on perverse appreciation of evidence, contrary to public policy and natural justice and thus liable to be set aside.
Thus, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned award dated 09.07.2022 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator and also prayed for remand back the matter to Ld. Sole Arbitrator for passing fresh award after permitting the petitioner to file additional documents / statement.
7. The respondent has filed the reply to the above petition, contending therein that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present petition are vague and bereft of details. The petitioner has merely raised bald assertions against the Arbitral Award sans any factual or contextual reference. It is contended that a bare perusal of the arbitral award would make it apparent that the award is detailed, reasoned and reflects an application of mind on all the submissions made by the petitioner and evidence filed by it during the Arbitration. Further, the grounds raised by the petitioner in the petition either OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Page 9 of 26 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:22:51 +0530 require a review of merits or a re-appreciation of evidence or are grounds contending erroneous application of law. Such grounds are specifically barred under Explanation II to Sec 34(2)(b) and Proviso to Sec 34(2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is stated that a direction dated 24.08.2018 was issued by DPCC under section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Such directions were issued to the petitioner as it had failed to comply with DPCC's previous directions, dated 21.03.2018, to switch over to PNG with immediate effect, thereby operating illegally. Petitioner approached the respondent for switching over to PNG and was apprised of the PNG installation process and the documentation necessary for the same. Respondent denied that the claimant took immediate steps or duly applied for a PNG connection to the respondent in September 2018. However, respondent admitted that the respondent issued a draft GSA vide e-mail dated 26.09.2018. Respondent denied that all documents necessary for PNG connection were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent on 28.09.2018. It is also denied that the petitioner registered any protest with the respondent. It is denied that the respondent conveyed the details of its association with DPCC to the petitioner. It is further denied that the respondent or any of its employees gave any assurance to the petitioner that application for PNG connection to the respondent is taken as compliance by DPCC or that DPCC does not take any further action pursuant to the same. Respondent denied the letter dated 04.10.2018 purportedly issued by the petitioner to DPCC. It is also OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 10 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:23:01 +0530 denied that a GSA was duly signed by the petitioner or submitted to the respondent by 04.10.2018. Respondent further denied that the letter dated 29.11.2018 purportedly issued by the petitioner to DPCC.
It is stated that the closure directions issued by DPCC on 14.12.2018 referred to its previous directions to the petitioner to switch over to PNG as well as to its gazette notification dated 29.06.2018, directing industrial units to shift to approved fuels within 90 days. It is in such backdrop that the closure directions were issued. As such, therefore, the responsibility for issuance of such a closure direction lay solely on the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner had duly applied for a connection by 14.12.2018.
8. As per the respondent, a GSA taken out on a stamp paper, duly signed by the petitioner alongwith the Board Resolution, documents necessary for due application of PNG connection, were only handed over to the respondent on 18.12.2018. Pursuant to receipt of the same, the respondent undertook a feasibility survey of the said premises on 22.12.2018 to verify the technical feasibility for setting up a PNG connection at the said location. Pursuant to confirming such feasibility, the petitioner was called upon to make an online transfer of the security deposit for installation of the metering and regulatory system (MRS), as the cheque submitted for this purpose was expiring on 23.12.2018. It is contended that pursuant to transfer of the said amount on 29.12.2018, the respondent proceeded to sign the GSA on the same date and thereafter, registered the petitioner for a PNG connection and issued it a Business Partner no. 9700001861 and the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited signed by Page 11 of 26 lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:23:13 +0530 same was communicated to the petitioner on 29.12.2018. It is stated that prior to the above mail dated 29.12.2018, however, the respondent had inadvertently issued an email dated 18.12.2018 to the respondent erroneously stating that the GSA had been signed between the parties, the security deposit had been received and the petitioner had been assigned a BP No."9700001849". Respondent contended that this erroneous email was categorically asked to be ignored by the respondent vide its aforementioned email dated 29.12.2018, wherein the correct details of signing of the GSA, receipt of security deposit and B.P. number were provided to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has stated that it had forgot to mention the BP No. 9700001849 allotted to it by the respondent, in its letter dated 30.11.2018 to the DPCC. This was a deliberate misrepresentation by the petitioner to the DPCC that by 30.11.2018 a BP number had in fact been allotted to it. Such concealment and misrepresentation by the petitioner in an attempt to mislead DPCC was made entirely at its own risk and was soon followed by disconnection of electricity at its premises on 28.12.2018. It is submitted that the electricity at the said premises was disconnected in pursuit to the closure directions dated 14.12.2018 issued by DPCC whereby the electricity discom was directed to disconnect electricity supply with immediate effect.
Respondent denied that the communication of an erroneous BP number was the cause for disconnection of electricity at the premises.
9. Respondent denied the contents of the purported letter dated 30.12.2018. It is denied that the respondent or any of its officials OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally signed by M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal lal singh Page 12 of 26 Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:23:22 +0530 acted illegally or that any of its actions or omissions led to disconnection of electricity to the said premises. It is contended by the respondent that notably, the order dated 02.01.2019 issued by DPCC withdrawing its closure directions dated 14.12.2018, never cited the communication of an incorrect BP number as being the reason for disconnection of electricity to the premises. Respondent denied that any act or omission of the respondent caused electricity or water connection at the said premises to be disconnected and the same resulted in complete halt of business at the said premises and the petitioner suffered any loss or damage as a result of the same. In its reply, respondent also denied that the petitioner suffered loss of business, goodwill, public image or reputation or any other loss. Respondent contended that the petitioner had furnished practically no evidence to prove its purported loss. Further, petitioner merely produced a CA certificate which contained vague and unsubstantiated assertions. Respondent denied that the award is either perverse, patently illegal, inconsistent, contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, justice or morality. Respondent prayed that the present petition be dismissed with cost.
10. Petitioner has also filed an application under Section 34 (4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, for remitting the matter back to the Arbitral Tribunal, contending therein that the Ld. Arbitrator has wrongly disallowed the claims of the petitioner towards the loss of business and loss of profit. It is contended in the said application that Ld. Arbitrator erred by not relying upon the CA's certificate to prove OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Digitally signed byPage 13 of 26 lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:23:31 +0530 the losses and damaged incurred by the petitioner, as the Chartered Accountant is the best possible person / expert to quantify / certify such losses / damages. Petitioner further contended that it is not the case that there was no calculation sheet as the same was referred in the certificate itself. It is submitted that merely non-filing of calculation sheet cannot be the reason to completely discredit the certificate and disallow the claim of the petitioner. It is contended that the Ld. Arbitrator despite appreciating the certificate of Chartered Accountant did not consider it for the quantification of the losses and damages suffered by the petitioner on erroneous and arbitrary grounds. Thus, the petitioner in the said application prayed that the direction be given to the Ld. Arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings and opportunity be given to the petitioner to file such additional documents or statements which is in the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. It is further prayed that adjourn the present proceeding for a suitable period so that appropriate steps could be taken before the arbitral tribunal to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
11. Respondent has filed reply to the application under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, contending therein that the arbitral award is well reasoned, detailed and has dealt with all the issues arising in the matter in detail and as such there is no valid ground under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, for setting aside the arbitral award. Respondent also contended that there is no requirement for this court to adjourn the present proceedings for the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited DigitallyPage 14 of 26 signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:23:39 +0530 abovesaid purpose as sought by the petitioner. Respondent prayed that the present application be rejected and the petition be dismissed.
12. Arguments heard.
13. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the claim of Rs.35,63,553/- on account of loss of business and Rs.16,70,416/- towards loss of profit and Rs.18,75,215/- towards fixed cost, Rs.4,43,573/- towards labour earning loss, Rs.5,00,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the petitioner / claimant on restoration of electricity, water and coordination with respondent, Delhi Jal Board and DPCC and Rs.40,94,330/- towards interest on the liquidated damages and further Rs.5,00,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs.50,00,000/- towards loss of goodwill. He further submitted that the Ld. Arbitrator has allowed the claim of the petitioner on merits but did not award any amount on the ground that the petitioner could not proved the quantum of losses. He argued that due to the negligent act of the respondent IGL, the workshop / showroom of the petitioner remained closed for about six days. It is further argued that in the award Ld. Arbitrator held that the respondent was in dereliction of duties. It is also submitted that alongwith the present petition, the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 34 (4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, and said application may be decided alongwith the present petition. He submitted that the petitioner be permitted to produce the underlying documents of CA certificate and call the CA as a witness or appoint an expert to decide upon the quantum of losses and damages suffered by the petitioner due to the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Page 15 of 26 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:23:50 +0530 dereliction of duties by the respondent. He also argued that the CA's as class of accounting expert are universally accepted top most expert. He submitted that Ld. Arbitrator has not given any findings on the quantum of loss. He also argued that the present petition may be allowed.
14. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the re-appreciation of the facts and evidence is not permissible. Further, it is argued that the petitioner has failed to establish the losses suffered by the petitioner. It is the petitioner who has produced the formal witnesses, who deposed on the basis of documents. Even as per the petitioner itself, only electricity and water connection work were disconnected from 28.12.2018 to 02.01.2019. He submitted that no documents were annexed with the statement of claim in support of the amounts claimed by the petitioner. Further, CA certificate Ex.CW1/19 is not accompanied by the supporting documents. The person who issued the CA certificate was not examined or produced as a witness by the petitioner / claimant. He submitted that Ld. Arbitrator held that the claimant failed to satisfy that the CA's certificate is reliable for the actual loss supposedly suffered by the petitioner / claimant. It is argued that the only document relied by the petitioner is the CA certificate. However, the CA certificate does not constitute any direct evidence of the losses suffered by the petitioner. Further, the CA certificate by itself is insufficient as proof of loss as same being hearsay nature of the certificate and absence of supporting documents.
OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 16 of 26singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:24:00 +0530 Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. I have considered the above submissions of Ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. counsel for the respondent and also gone through the arbitral record.
16. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner / claimant for setting aside the arbitral award dated 09.07.2022 passed by Ld. Arbitrator or direction be given to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings and an opportunity be given to the petitioner to file additional documents/statements. As per the petitioner / claimant, the petitioner approached the respondent and requested for grant of PNG connection to the premises of the petitioner and on 28.09.2018, petitioner / claimant submitted all the necessary documents including Signed Gas Sale Agreement at the headquarters of the respondent at IGL Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, for installment of PNG connection alongwith applicable fees. Further, the petitioner / claimant protested for the late steps taken by the respondent in sending necessary documents. Further, vide letter dated 04.10.2018, petitioner informed the DPCC about the application submitted by the petitioner for installation of the PNG with respondent. In response to a communication by the DPCC, the petitioner vide its letter dated 29.11.2018, again informed the DPCC that the petitioner had already applied for PNG connection with the respondent and petitioner is waiting for PNG connection to get installed by the respondent. Thereafter, vide notification dated OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 17 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:24:07 +0530 14.12.2018, DPCC in exercise of power conferred upon it, under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1918 issued closure direction against the petitioner. The reason given for such direction was as follows:
And whereas, as per the list provided by IGL, you neither switched over to PNG nor have registered with IGL for the PNG conversion till date.
Thus, the petitioner shocked and surprised after receiving the aforesaid notification given the fact that PNG connection was duly applied by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner visited the head office of the respondent on 18.12.2018, inquiring about the status of file / application of the petitioner for the PNG connection, however petitioner shocked to know that the application of the petitioner has not been processed till then i.e. from 30.09.2018 to 18.12.2018. Upon the protest and objection raised by the petitioner, respondent immediately issued Business Partner Number (BP Number) to the petitioner by email on the same day i.e. 18.12.2018. Thereafter, petitioner informed the DPCC about the BP Number allotted to the petitioner by the respondent. On 28.12.2018, the electricity connection of the premises of the petitioner was disconnected on the pretext that PNG connection was not applied or installed at the premises of the petitioner. However, on inquiry with the officials of the DPCC, the petitioner came to know that no such BP number was allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner visited the head office of the respondent on 29.12.2018 and informed the officials of the respondent that the electricity connection was disconnected at the petitioner's OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Page 18 of 26 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:24:16 +0530 premises due to the fact that no BP number was allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, it was revealed that the BP number which was stated to be allotted to the petitioner was in fact never issued in the name of the petitioner and same had already been issued to some other person. After that, vide email dated 30.12.2018, the respondent informed the petitioner that their PNG connection has been registered and earlier BP number that was allotted to the petitioner was wrongly given and new BP number has been allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the earlier BP number. Thus, as per the petitioner, due to the negligence and illegal acts of the respondent, the electricity and water connection at the premises of the petitioner was disconnected, which resulted incomplete halt of the business of the petitioner between morning of 28.12.2018 to evening of 02.01.2019, thereby causing huge losses and damages on account of loss of business and goodwill of public image and reputation. As per the respondent, the electricity at the premises was disconnected in pursuance to the closure directions dated 14.12.2018 issued by DPCC, whereby the electricity discom was directed to disconnect the electricity supply with immediate effect and further contended that the electricity at the premises of the petitioner was disconnected in pursuance of closure directions dated 14.12.2018, which was issued due to the illegal conduct of the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has duly applied for PNG connection with the respondent and due to the negligent act/dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent, there was delay in issuance of correct BP number, which resulted shut down OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 19 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:24:30 +0530 of the premises of the petitioner from 28.12.2018 to 02.01.2019.
17. As such, apparently the respondent had delayed the issuance of PNG connection to the petitioner and even stated to have allotted wrong BP number to the petitioner and when it came to the notice of the respondent then respondent issued new BP Number.
Thus, as per the petitioner on account of the negligence of the respondent, electricity and water connection in the premises of the petitioner was disconnected which resulted complete halt of the business of the petitioner at the premises from 28.12.2018 to 02.01.2019. Apparently, disconnection of the electricity and water connection in the premises of the petitioner was due to the above acts of the respondent. Moreover, in the award, Ld. Arbitrator also observed that the respondent was in dereliction of duty by providing wrong BP number which was the likely cause for the shutdown of the premises from 28.12.2018 to 02.01.2019.
18. It is the case of the petitioner that though the Ld. Arbitrator has held that the respondent was in dereliction of duties and accepted the case of the petitioner on merit but did not award any amount to the petitioner / claimant on the ground that the petitioner / claimant failed to prove the quantum of loss. However, Ld. counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has failed to establish the loss suffered by the petitioner. As per the respondent, the petitioner has also not examined the person who had issued the CA certificate Ex.CW1/19. Further, as per the respondent CA certificate is not accompanied by the supporting documents. The petitioner has relied OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 20 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:24:41 +0530 observations given by the CA in the CA certificate to substantiate its claim. The CA certificate as issued by CA on 29.11.2021 is reproduced as under:
Date: 29.11.2021 To, The Directors, MN Automobile Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Sikka Automobile Pvt. Ltd.) B-88/1, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Maya Puri, New Delhi - 110064.
Subject : Certification of Damages calculation Sir, We have received you request for certification of Damages due to discontinuation of Electricity at your premises for a specified period (in the last week of December 2018 and restored on 02.01.2019) due to negligence of various authorities. In this regard we have checked the data and calculations provided by you. While checking the data it has been observed that the total turnover of the company has fallen in the very next month of the incident against the custom of enhancement of sales due to change in model with effect from January every year. As per your calculation sheet attached herewith for 3 years it is evident that the turnover was increased in previous years in that particular month. Our observation and certification are purely based on all the calculation, documents and data provided to us for certification. Our observation are as follows:
Loss of Business due to decrease in Turnover 36,63,553/- Loss of Profit due to decrease in Business 16,70,416/- Fixed Cost incurred during that period 18,75,215/- Labour Earning Loss during that period 4,43,573/- The above calculation of loss seems okay as far as the percentage of losses taking generation of revenue for the whole year. As far as the expenses incurred on Restoration of Electricity and coordination with IGL & DPCC amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- is concerned, I think this is a combination of various expenses taken on estimation basis. Loss of goodwill is best known to company and directors only and our comments on this will not be appropriate.
Interest has been calculated from 02.01.2019 (date of Restoration of Electricity) to 29.10.2021 (date of filing the claim) on the damages.
FOR ARUN KUCHHAL & ASSOCIATES,
OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 Digitally
signed by
M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Page 21 of 26
lal lal singh
Date:
singh 2025.09.27
16:24:52
+0530
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS,
FIRM REG NO. 009167N
(ARUN K. AGARWAL)
M. No. 087723
Place : New Delhi
Date : 29.11.2021
As such, the petitioner/claimant has sought the amount from the respondent company on the basis of observations as made by the CA in CA certificate as well as other sum of amount as claimed by the petitioner/claimant in statement of claim. Though, the CA's certificate appears to have based on the calculations, documents and data provided to the CA by the claimant / petitioner, however no such material / documents have been annexed with the CA certificate as well as alongwith statement of claim (SOC). The petitioner / claimant has not filed evidence by way of affidavit of the CA nor CA was examined. Moreover, in the evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Naveen Prakash Aggarwal, as filed before Ld. Arbitrator, on behalf of petitioner / claimant, there is no mentioning of the documents as supplied to the CA. Thus no much wait can be attached to the CA certificate and CA certificate is not the conclusive proof for the alleged damages as claimed to be suffered by the petitioner / claimant.
In the judgment titled as Delhi Transco Ltd. vs KEC International Ltd., 2025 SCC Online Del 3736, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
9. The Ld. AT unquestioningly, without giving any reasoning, accepts the CA certificates. This acceptance is without even the Chartered Accountant having been examined as a witness. The CA Certificates itself had never been proved.
In any event, the CA could have only verified the CA Certificates and not the OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited lal Page 22 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:25:00 +0530 underlying documents.
10. This Court further notes that the person signing the CA Certificates is not the author of any of the documents that have been set out in the certificates. The said certificates only claim to have "verified" the contents of the "audited books of account", "contract ledger" and "related documents".
11. With the greatest of respect, nothing could be vaguer than the said certificates. The CA who has signed the CA Certificates is, at best, someone who has verified or tallied figures that have been made by someone else. The said CA is not even the author of any of the items that he has verified. The Books of accounts have likely been prepared by an accountant and these have been audited by an auditor. The contract ledger has been maintained by someone other than the CA certificates' signatory and the "related documents"
referred to are probably the most ambiguous items verified by the CA.
12. Regrettably, apart from the unquestioned acceptance, there is no attempt made to verify the veracity of the said figures. The Ld. AT accepts a document which is bereft of any details. The entire claim is based on the ipse dixit of the Claimant.
13. It is apparent that the Ld. AT has taken into account the alleged certificates which did not have any particulars setting out the details based on which the amounts have been arrived at, and did not also deem it necessary to delve further into the matter.
14. This, despite the fact that the Appellant herein had clearly in their written submissions, filed before the Ld. AT, questioned the veracity of the certificate and clearly stated that the same were bereft of any particulars and consequently could not be taken into account for the purpose of evaluating the claims of the Respondent.
15. The Appellant would, in addition, contend that as per the relevant clauses of the General Clauses for Contract, being Clauses 25.2 and 37, there was a mandate for the Claimant to give the relevant particulars and the said CA certificates having not fulfilled this mandate, the Ld. AT's unquestioned acceptance of the same also renders the Award unsustainable.
16. The Appellant herein had challenged this finding in their application under Section 34 of the A&C Act in the following terms: -
"I. Because the Ld. Tribunal has allowed the claims on the basis of certificate of the chartered accountant. The said evidence of the chartered accountant could not have been relied upon in view of the fact that neither any books of account, ledger or account were placed. During the cross examination of the respondent's witness, it is clearly evident from the following that no such amounts recoverable from the petitioner was shown in the respondent's record.
Further, in the above judgment of Delhi Transco Ltd. vs OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 lal M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited singh Page 23 of 26 Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:25:11 +0530 KEC International Ltd., it was also observed as under:
18. We are of the considered opinion that the Award, as well as the impugned judgment, to the extent that it assumes that the alleged CA Certificates are the gospel truth without even examining the underlying documents upon which the claim is allegedly based, is completely unsustainable. The said CA certificates would effectively translate into being "no evidence" at all.
23. In any event, admittedly, the authors of the various documents mentioned therein (accounts, contract, ledger and related documents), bases on which the said certificates were drawn and which form the foundation of the said certificate have not been examined and the respondent has, therefore, failed to provide any basis for the claims made by it.
24. The Award of a sum of Rs.65,50,795/-, which was set out in paragraph 175(iii) is the interest awarded on the amount which has been awarded under paragraph 175(i). The said amount is completely based on the alleged CA Certificate and consequently, would also stand disallowed.
25. To wit, any sums awarded, based on the CA certificates, would necessarily have to be disallowed.
As such, the CA certificate without supporting as well as underlying documents cannot be taken into consideration regarding the losses stated to be suffered by the petitioner as mentioned in CA Certificate.
19. The petitioner has failed to prove the losses suffered by the petitioner. Only on the basis of the CA Certificate, the petitioner has filed the claim before the Ld. Arbitrator and after going through the records of the matter and documents produced by the parties during the arbitration, the Ld. Arbitrator has rightly observed that the petitioner has failed to establish the losses as claimed by the petitioner. In the judgment titled as Consolidated Construction Consortium OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 lal M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Page 24 of 26 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:25:22 +0530 Limited Vs Software Technology Parks Of India, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5383 of 2024 on 28.04.2025, it was observed as under:
23. Scope of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is now well crystallized by a plethora of judgments of this Court.
Section 34 is not in the nature of an appellate provision. It provides for setting aside an arbitral award that too only on very limited grounds i.e. as those contained in sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 34. It is the only remedy for setting aside an arbitral award. An arbitral award is not liable to be interfered with only on the ground that the award is illegal or is erroneous in law which would require re- appraisal of the evidence adduced before the arbitral tribunal. If two views are possible, there is no scope for the court to re-appraise the evidence and to take the view other than the one taken by the arbitrator. The view taken by the arbitral tribunal is ordinarily to be accepted and allowed to prevail. Thus, the scope of interference in arbitral matters is only confined to the extent envisaged under Section 34 of the Act. The court exercising powers under Section 34 has perforce to limit its jurisdiction within the four corners of Section 34. It cannot travel beyond Section 34. Thus, proceedings under Section 34 are summary in nature and not like a full-fledged civil suit or a civil appeal.
The award as such cannot be touched unless it is OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 lal M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited singh Page 25 of 26 Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.09.27 16:25:31 +0530 contrary to the substantive provisions of law or Section 34 of the 1996 Act or the terms of the agreement.
24. Therefore, the role of the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is clearly demarcated. It is a respective jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a conservative manner. The reason is that arbitral autonomy must be respected and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will defeat the very object of the 1996 Act.
20. As such, the petition under Section 34 of A&C Act, can be interfered with only on the limited grounds and petitioner has failed to make out the case so as to interfere with the award passed by Ld. Arbitrator. There is no infirmity or illegality in the award dated 09.07.2022 passed by Ld. Arbitrator. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, deserves to be dismissed and same is dismissed. Consequently, the application under Section 34 (4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, is also dismissed.
21. Arbitral record be sent back to Ld. Arbitrator.
22. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.09.27 16:25:41 +0530 Announced in Open (LAL SINGH) Court on 27.09.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi IR OMP (Comm) No. 60/22 M/s MN Automobile Private Limited Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited Page 26 of 26