Delhi District Court
M/S Prestige Buildcon P Ltd And Anr vs M/S New Horizon Retail P Ltd And Anr on 10 December, 2025
DLST010020272017
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
ARBTN A (COMM). 07/2020
Filing No. 2061/2018
CNR No. DLST-010020272017
In the matter of
M/s Prestige Buildon (P) Ltd
Having office at:
910, Ansal Bhawan, 16
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
M/s Svaymbhu Construction (P) Ltd.
Having office at:
910, Ansal Bhawan, 16
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
......Petitioners
VERSUS
M/s New Horizon Retail (P) Ltd
Through its authorised signatory
Shri Suvendu Sahu
having its office at 7th floor, Tower-A
Infinity Tower, DLF Phase-II
Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) ......Respondent No.1
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 1 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr M/s Planet Retail Holdings (P) Ltd.
Through its authorised signatory Shri Suvendu Sahu having its office at 7th floor, Tower-A Infinity Tower, DLF Phase-II Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) .......Respondent No.2 Date of Institution : 12.10.2011 Date of reserving the judgment : 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025 Decision : Dismissed JUDGMENT/ORDER Index to the Judgment I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PETITION...................................................3 II. REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT...................8 III. AWARD PASSED BY THE LD ARBITRATOR..........................................9 IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER............................9 V. FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 12 VI. SCOPE OF SECTION 34 ARBITRATION ACT.......................................14 ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 2 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PETITION
1. The facts as asseverated by the petitioner are hereby succinctly recapitulated: Both the petitioners are Private Limited Companies duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having their corporate office at 910, Ansal Bhawan, 16 KG Marg, New Delhi-110001. It was alleged that vide registered lease deed dated 01.06.2007, the petitioner no 1 took the premises bearing no CG-05 at Block C in the complex known as Ansal Plaza, Hudco Place, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi having super built up area of approximately 1714 sq ft on lease from Mrs Archana Luthra w/o Mr Vipin Luthra, resident of No. 3 Village 6, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi on the terms and conditions contained in the said lease deed. It was further alleged that the said lease deed dated 01.06.2007 was for a period of four and a half years w.e.f 01.10.2007 with a monthly lease rent of Rs 5,69,100/- calculated at the rate of Rs 350/- per sq ft month chargeable on the super built up area of the aforesaid demised premises.
2. It was brought to the fore that a supplementary Lease Deed was executed on 31st July 2007 between the petitioner no 1 and Mrs Archana Luthra to extend the date of commencement of tenancy w.e.f 01.11.2007. It was alleged that the said supplementary Lease Deed dated 31.07.2007 was neither drawn on the stamp paper of requisite value nor the said was ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 3 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr got registered as mandatory required under the law and the fact remained that the respondent no 1 continued as a month to month tenant.
3. It was further stated that vide letter dated 13.08.2007, Mrs Archana Luthra had consented to assign the said demised premises in favour of petitioner no 2 to open a retail store under the name of 'Next' and since thereafter the petitioner no 2 continued to be in possession of the said demised premises. It was stated that the rent bills were also issued in the name of petitioner no 2. It was further alleged that neither the Assignment Agreement nor any lease deed was registered between the petitioner no 2 and Mrs Archana Luthra.
4. It was also stated that vide letter dated 02.06.2008 they apprised to Mrs Archana Luthra about various shortcomings of the expectation from the above-mentioned premises/the Mall at large and requested for reasonable rent rebate for the period of April-June 2008. It was also remonstrated that Mrs Archana Luthra accepted and allowed a rent rebate of Rs 11,23,600/- which was paid vide cheque no 339230 dated 20.08.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. RK Puram Branch, New Delhi.
5. It was brought to the fore that the a Tripartite Agreement dated 22.07.2008 was executed between petitioner no 1 Mrs Archana Luthra and respondents recording therein that Mrs Archana Luthra sold, transferred and assigned her all rights, ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 4 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr title and interest in respect of the demised premises to the respondents and the lease deed dated 01.06.2007 stood attorned in favour of the respondents.
6. It was however stated that the said Tripartite agreement was neither executed on the stamp paper of the requisite value nor was the same got registered as required under the law. It was alleged that on the date of Tripartite agreeement between the petitioner no 1 Mrs Archana Luthra and the respondents, there was no transfer of any interest from Archana Luthra to respondents. It was also alleged in the petition that Mrs Archana Luthra entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.07.2008 with respondents thereby agreeing to sell all her rights, title and interest in respect of the demised premises in favour of respondents together with all fittings, fixtures and furniture. It was also brought to the fore that the agreement to sell was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 23.07.2008 as document no 11419 Addl Book no 1, Vol no 8684 at pages 101 to 115. Mrs Archana Luthra also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondents to enable them to enjoy all the rights, title and interest in respect of the said demised premises and that the General Power of Attorney was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 23.07.2008.
7. It was contended that no lease deed was executed or registered between the parties, and that petitioner no 2 ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 5 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr continued as a month to month tenant in respect of the demised premises. It was the contention of the petitioners that neither the supplementary Lease Deed dated 31.07.2007, nor the assignment letter dated 13.08.2007 was registered and as such mention of any certain and lock in period for the terms exceeding one year in any of the document was of no consequence and therefore the petitioners continued to be a month to month tenant.
8. It was alleged that respondents were informed about the shortcomings of the mall specifying the Ansal Plaza's inability to hold on its buying customers base and consequent reduction of footfalls by the petitioner no 2 through various communications including letter dated 17.10.2008. However, the respondents' failure to remove the shortcomings to enable them to get the rent, the petitioner no 2 vide letter dated 25.02.2009 through its Advocate terminated the tenancy w.e.f 31.03.2009 by giving a 15 days clear notice to the respondents as the tenancy was month to month tenancy.
9. It was further alleged that petitioners by letter dated 25.02.3009 also called upon the respondents to take possession of the vacant demised premises on 25.03.2009 and that the respondents agreed to take back the possession but did not allow the petitioners to remove their belongings from the demised premises and therefore the possession could not be handed over to the respondents.
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 6 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr
10. It was stated that the respondents instead of taking the vacant possession and allowing the petitioners to remove their belongings from the demised premises, filed application u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court and that the Court vide its order dated 25.05.2009 directed the petitioners to hand over the vacant physical possession to the respondents on 27.05.2009. The petitioners were also allowed to take out the merchandise, furniture and fixtures belonging to them.
11.It was also brought to the fore that the respondents also filed the petition u/s 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of amounts claimed in the petitioner and the Court vide its order dated 10.09.2009 appointed an Arbitrator.
12. On 06.07.2011 the Arbitrator passed the Award holding that the respondents are entitled to Rs 1,03,43,329.50/- and after adjusting the security amount of Rs 34,14,600/- awarded Rs 69,28,729.50/- to the respondents with interest and cost mentioned in para 82 and 83 of the Award.
13.Hence, the petitioners herein aggrieved by the Award dated 06.07.2011, filed the present petition under Section34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 7 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr II. REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT
14.As per the record, reply to the present petition was filed on behalf of respondent wherein he denied all the avernments made in the statement of claim. Respondent contended that the entire arbitral award is against the facts and the settled law and that the petitioners are not entitled to any amount at all, much less enhancement of awarded amount. He further contended that the respondent herein had already filed the objections u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 06.07.2011 of the Ld Arbitrator. It was also contended that the Ld Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the tenancy was a month to month tenancy and there was no question of there being any lock-in period or levying of any damages for termination of Clause 5 (b) of Lease Deed dated 01.06.2007 was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. Ld Counsel for respondent also stated that the Ld Arbitraor, after examining all the documents came to a conclusion that in absence of Mr Archana Luthra as the necessary party, this claim itself is not maintainable, also held that the rights including enforcement of lock-in period flowing out of registered lease deed dated 01.06.2007 could only have been transferred by way of registered document.
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 8 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr III. AWARD PASSED BY THE LD ARBITRATOR
16. The Arbitrator framed the following issues:
1. Whether Mrs Archana Luthra is a necessary party? If so what is the effect of not impleading her? OPR
2. Whether the respondents occupied the demised premises as a tenant from month to month? OPR
3. Whether the lock-in period in the Lease Deed dated 01.06.2007 is unconscionable and opposed to public policy U/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act? OPR
4. Whether the claimants are entitled to liquidated damages as stipulated in the Lease Deed dated 01.06.2005 ? OPC
5. Whether the claimant has taken steps to mitigate the damages?
6. Relief.
17.Thereafter, vide arbitral award dated 06.07.2011, the Ld. Arbitrator partly allowed the claim of the Claimant.
18.It is the Arbitral Award dated 06h July, 2011 (impugned award) passed by the Ld Arbitrator that has been assailed u/s 34 of the Act vide the present petition.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
19. Sh Ravi Shankar Nanda, Ld Counsel for petitioner submitted that the Ld Arbitrator has not awarded compensation for the entire lock-in period up till 31.03.2012, rather has truncated ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 9 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr the compensation/award amount and limited it till a period up to 06.07.2011 i.e. date of the Award.
20. Ld Counsel further contended that the Arbitration Award passed by the Ld Arbitrator falls foul of the mandate of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which makes it incumbent upon the Arbitral Tribunal to mandatorily take into account the terms of the contract applicable to the transaction.
21.Ld Counsel submitted that the terms of the contract in the present case were explicit, and the 2nd party, in case of the termination of the agreement before the lock-in period of 4 ½ years had elapsed or any ground whatsoever, the 2 nd party (respondent herein) had to pay to the 1st party (petitioner herein) 50% of the lease rent as damages, for the balance period of lock-in period.
22.Further, Ld Counsel for petitioner assailed the Award of the Ld Arbitrator by averring that the Lease Deed categorically envisaged an agreed/liquidated amount of damages, and therefore, the damages qua the period 06.07.2011 to 31.03.2012 cannot be termed as a remote damage.
23.In a nutshell, Ld Counsel for petitioner contended that the Ld Arbitrator ought to have computed damages right up till the end of the period of lock-in period of 4 ½ years i.e. up till 31.03.2012.
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 10 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr
24. Ld Counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on para 49 of Gayatri Balasamy v M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd 2025 INSC 605, to contend that notwithstanding the award passed by the Ld Arbitrator, this Court has the authority to rectify the error which has crept in the award of Ld Arbitrator and this Court can modify the award incorporating damages right up till 31.03.2012.
25.Lastly, Ld Counsel has contended that since the Ld Arbitrator did not factor into account the damages for the period 06.07.2011 to 31.03.2012, Ld Arbitrator has committed a manifest error and the award is perverse and therefore u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this Court can modify the error.
26. Per contra, Sh Aman Dhyani, Ld Counsel for respondent submitted that the verdict of Gayatri (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the mandate of Gayatri (supra) makes it abundantly explicit, as mentioned in para 85 thereof that the powers to modify the arbitral award are circumscribed, and this Court can only correct clerical, computation or typographical errors which appear erroneous on the face of record. Ld Counsel for respondent also placed reliance on Thelma J Talloo Vs Jesus and Mary College and Ors O.M.P 150/2013 in this regard.
27. Ld Counsel specifically pointed out that the Ld Counsel for petitioner is arguing beyond his pleadings inasmuch as his ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 11 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr petition does not contain a whisper of relief qua modification of award.
V. FINDINGS
28. In In order to adjudicate upon rival claims, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant portions of Section 34 of the Act, which lays down grounds for setting aside an arbitral award:
34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.--
(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if-- 21
(a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that--
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 12 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or
(b) the Court finds that--
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
[Explanation 1.--For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,--
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2.--For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.
[(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence.]
29. Thus, the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are specific, ostensibly conveying the legislative intent of according sanctity to arbitral proceedings and to arbitral awards, and of course, giving impetus to alternate dispute resolution mechanisms. Ergo, not all and sundry objections can be raised under this provision.
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 13 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr VI. SCOPE OF SECTION 34 ARBITRATION ACT
30. It was thus rightly emphasized by the respondent that the scope of adjudicating objections under Section 34 of the Act is circumscribed by the limits set therein. It is equally trite that this Court is not sitting in appeal over the award rendered by the Ld Arbitrator nor is a re-appreciation of evidence permitted herein, unless there is a patent illegality or an egregious violation of the principles of natural justice.
31. In the recent verdict of Gayatri Balasamy (supra), it was categorically exposited that the scope of judicial intervention u/s 34 is confined to the limited grounds expressly provided therein.
32. In Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1, it was laid down as thus:
"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 ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 14 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand frustrated.
33. 25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the Courts should not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The Courts need to be cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning provided in the award is implied unless such award portrays perversity unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act"
34. The leitmotif discernible from the above verdicts is that a Court ought to be extremely circumspect whilst exercising jurisdiction u/s 34 of the Act.
35.During the course of arguments, Ld Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on Gayatri Balaswamy (supra) to contend that this Court had the authority to rectify the error which apparently had crept in the award of the Ld Arbitrator. However, this contention is bereft of any legal justification. A perusal of Gayatri Balaswamy (supra) would reveal that power to modify is circumscribed inasmuch as the modification can be done only qua computational, clerical or typographical errors, and modification which does not necessitate a merits based evaluation is proscribed.
36. By way of this petition, the petitioners seek a merit based evaluation of the Award passed by the Ld Arbitrator. In this context, it would be apt to refer to the impugned Award. After hearing the parties, the Ld Arbitrator framed inter alia issue ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 15 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr no 4 viz. Whether the claimants are entitled to liquidated damages as stipulated in the lease deed dated 01.06.2005, and issue no 5 viz., Whether the claimant has taken steps to mitigate the damages. The very framing of issue no 5 leads to an irresistible inference that the same was framed in order to adjudicate or to ascertain the extent of liquidated damages, as stipulated in issue no 4.
37. Both, issues no 4 and 5 were decided by the Ld Arbitrator after exhaustive deliberations. The Ld Arbitrator delved in an extensive discussion qua Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce the following extracts of the Award;
"75. In view of the provisions of section 74 of the Contract Act this Tribunal can award damages to the claimants whether or not actual damages or loss is proved to have been caused the sum named in the Lease. Section 73 however, provides that such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. In the instant case the claimants have been able to prove that the premises are lying vacant till date. They are therefore entitled to damages at the stipulated rate up to the date of this award. Compensation cannot be awarded for future loss as it would amount to compensating for remote loss."
38. The above conclusion was derived after perusing the lease deed as well as after referring to several judgments. In paragraph no 73 of the Award, the Ld Arbitrator has categorically observed that the claimants are entitled to be ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 16 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr compensated for the loss suffered by them on account of breach of contract by the respondents and that the claimants have been able to show that they took reasonable steps to mitigate the damages by making efforts to let out the property. It is perhaps this mitigation of damages that weighed in the mind of the Ld Arbitrator while limiting the damages up to the date of the Award, and not up till the end of the lock-in period i.e. 31.03.2012.
39. The petitioners had claimed that the award was contrary to the settled principles of law and was passed without correctly appreciating the law. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the petitioners' claim is bereft of merit. An award can be set aside inter alia if the award was in conflict with public policy of India or fundamental policy of Indian law, and not on the ground of an erroneous application of law.
40.It is pertinent to note that Section 34 itself lays down that an award would be in conflict with the public policy of India only if inter alia it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law. This Court is of the opinion that the words 'fundamental policy of Indian law' have to be read to necessarily exclude within its ambit 'the Indian Law' per se. If every contravention of Indian law was to be deemed to be affecting public policy of India, the Statute would have categorically mentioned it so. The exclusion is not a cassius omissus, rather it is a deliberate exercise, in line with the ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 17 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr intention of the legislature viz. to ensure fair, efficient and expeditious arbitral proceedings and to minimise the supervisory role of Courts in the arbitral process. This deduction gets fortified upon a perusal of the following extracts of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.v NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131:
" 36 Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] . Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act only so that Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] , as understood in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , and paras 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.
37 Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-A), added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law. In short, what is not subsumed within "the fundamental policy of Indian law", namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground of patent illegality."
ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 18 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr
41. In fact, in Renusagar Power Co Ltd. v General Electric Co. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, the meaning of the term public policy was elucidated as thus:
"65 This would imply that the defence of public policy which is permissible under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) should be construed narrowly. In this context, it would also be of relevance to mention that under Article I(e) of the Geneva Convention Act of 1927, it is permissible to raise objection to the enforcement of arbitral award on the ground that the recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to the public policy or to the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon. To the same effect is the provision in Section 7(1) of the Protocol & Convention Act of 1837 which requires that the enforcement of the foreign award must not be contrary to the public policy or the law of India. Since the expression "public policy" covers the field not covered by the words "and the law of India" which follow the said expression, contravention of law alone will not attract the bar of public policy and something more than contravention of law is required."
42. Therefore, the allegation that the Ld Arbitrator contravened the provisions of Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act is totally without merit, and arguendo, even if he had done so, then also the award would not be assailable in view of the above verdicts.
43. Thus, in view of the in extenso discussion above, the grounds on which the arbitral award dated 06.07.2011 has been assailed by the claimant, are hereby rejected. The other grounds raised by the claimant in the written submissions, are in the realm of the award passed on merits of the matter and ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 19 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr de hors the grounds enumerated u/s 34, and an arena in which this Court cannot descend into, and qua which the claimant has the remedy to file an appeal. Ergo, the present claim petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is hereby dismissed.
44. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed Announced on 10th December, 2025 Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.12.10 18:36:38 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI ARBTN A (COMM) 7 /2020 Page. 20 of 20 M/s Prestige Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs M/s New Horizon Pvt Ltd & Anr