Delhi High Court - Orders
Delhi Jal Board vs Wpil Ltd. Consortium on 1 December, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 236/2022 & I.As. 8462-63/2022
DELHI JAL BOARD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Mr.
Rahul Chauhan, Mr. Sachin Jain,
Mr. Anurag Yadav, Advocates and
Mr. Alok Chabra, AE (DJB).
versus
WPIL LTD. CONSORTIUM ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Akshay
Chandra and Mr. Rahul
Chaudhary, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.12.2022
1. By way of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner-Delhi Jal Board ["DJB"], seeks to assail an arbitral award dated 10.10.2021, whereby disputes arising between the parties under a contract dated 16.12.2003 (Contract Agreement No. 5 (2003-2004)) were adjudicated.
2. Three principal contentions have been urged by Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, which are as follows:-
a. He submits that the award goes beyond the scope of arbitration, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:02.12.2022 13:16:42 O.M.P. (COMM) 236/2022 Page 1 of 3 inasmuch as it revisits issues which were finally adjudicated by the Dispute Adjudication Board ["DAB"]. Mr. Gupta draws my attention to clause 20 of the General Conditions of Contract for Construction ["GCC"] to submit that the parties were required to issue a notice of dissatisfaction in respect of any decision of the DAB, failing which the decision of the DAB became final and binding.
b. Mr. Gupta submits that the award of financing charges proceeds on an erroneous quantification, by applying the formula provided in clause 14.8 of the GCC to all claims of the respondent, whereas the said formula was applicable only to the payments which were delayed vis-a-vis the payment provision of clause 14.7 of the GCC. c. Mr. Gupta submits that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at a finding of delay attributable to the petitioner, which was not an issue raised before the DAB.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Akshay Chandra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
4. Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, disputes the aforesaid contentions. Mr. Garg also submits that the petition is not maintainable by virtue of a defective Statement of Truth. It is his contention that the Statement of Truth is not in terms of the format provided in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, inasmuch as it contains a blank in paragraph 6, and that approximately 1,000 pages of documents have been added to the record after the Statement of Truth was signed, in respect of which there is no Statement of Truth at all.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:02.12.2022 13:16:42 O.M.P. (COMM) 236/2022 Page 2 of 35. Response to I.A. 8463/2022 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in refiling of the petition, may be filed within four weeks.
6. Learned counsel for both parties may file such documents, which were part of the arbitral record, before the Court in electronic form. Learned counsel for the respondent will also file complete order sheets of the arbitral tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the parties are also requested to place their written submissions on record, which may be filed without prejudice to the respondent's contentions regarding maintainability.
8. List on 05.04.2023 PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 1, 2022 'vp'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:02.12.2022 13:16:42 O.M.P. (COMM) 236/2022 Page 3 of 3