Delhi District Court
M/S Sanjeev Kumar vs Delhi Metro Rail Corportion Ltd And Anrs on 2 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 03, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT
ARBTN No.464/2017
CNR No. DLND010010002017
Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dayal Sharma,
Having its registered office at
F-1/92, D.D. Quarters, Sultan Puri,
Delhi-110041.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Through its General Manager/AR
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001
2. Sh. Ajay Sharma (IRSE)
Sole Arbitrator
Chief Project Manager-10
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Ground Floor, Jhilmil Metro Station,
New Delhi-110095.
...Respondent
Date of institution : 28.01.2017
Date on which reserved for judgment : 02.05.2025
Date of decision : 02.05.2025
Decision : Petition allowed.
ARBTN No.464/17 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. DMRC & Anr. 1/5
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed against the award dated 27.12.2016.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an authorized parking contractor of parking lots allotted by the respondent no. 1. It is his case that on receiving possession of the parking sites, the petitioner observed that it is not in accordance with the site plan handed over to the petitioner alongwith the tendered documents, which was duly brought to the knowledge of the respondent no.1.
3. It is stated that there was problem of water logging. It is submitted that the parking site at the entrance of Dwarka Mor, there is small boundary wall and one staircase stood included in the super area of the parking site.
4. It is contended that about 150 vehicles were being parked by the staff of DMRC and Delhi Police, as against 30 vehicles which are being allowed. It is pleaded that there is a generator installed within the area which is included in the super area of the parking lot.
5. It is stated that representation and reminder were sent by the petitioner. It is averred that in this regard, the petitioner also visited the office of respondent no. 1.
6. It is stated that a letter dated 21.04.2014 was received by the petitioner by which an amount of Rs.28,59,286/- were ARBTN No.464/17 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. DMRC & Anr. 2/5 directed to be deposited alongwith Rs.1,58,356/- as outstanding dues.
7. It is stated that after receiving the above demand, the petitioner deposited Rs.9,00,000/-.
8. It is averred that since the respondent no. 1 did not take any action on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause of the license agreement. It is pleaded that respondent no. 2 was appointed as sole arbitrator.
9. It is stated that respondent no. 1 filed its claim and the petitioner filed his counter-claim. It is stated that both were disposed off by the impugned award dated 27.12.2016, which has been assailed in the present petition.
10. It is stated that the award is against the public policy. It is prayed that award dated 27.12.2016 be set aside.
11. Reply to the petition has been filed. Averments made in the petition have been denied.
12. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
13. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the award is in conflict with public policy of India since making of the award was in violation Section 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He draws the attention of the Court to clause (i) of Explanation 1 of Section 34 (2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He submits that before filing of statement of the claim, the parties had undergone Conciliation and the report of the Sole Conciliator was filed by the respondent no. 1 alongwith ARBTN No.464/17 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. DMRC & Anr. 3/5 its statement of claim. He states that the arbitrator has taken note of the conciliation proceedings in his award.
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner points out that Section 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that all matters relating to conciliation proceedings are to be kept confidential by the parties.
15. The Court is of the opinion that since the report of the Conciliator were not kept confidential by the respondent no. 1, Section 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been violated.
16. Clause (i) of Explanation 1 of Section 34 (2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that an award is in conflict with public policy of India if it has been passed in violation of Section 75 of the said Act.
17. In paragraph no. 2.2.1 of the award, the Arbitrator had made reference to the annexures filed alongwith statement of claim. The report of the Conciliator is annexure C-9 of the statement of claim.
18. In the case of Govind Prasad Sharma Vs. Doon Valley Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. AIR 2017 SC 4968, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "relating to" as used in Section 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is an expression of extremely wide import. It was held that the Conciliator and the parties must keep as confidential all matters relating to conciliation proceedings. In the present case, the entire ARBTN No.464/17 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. DMRC & Anr. 4/5 report of the Conciliator was brought to the notice of the Arbitrator and was not kept confidential.
19. In the report of the Conciliator, he has disclosed the details of the amounts that were offered for settlement, etc.
20. Therefore, the award is in conflict with Public Policy of India. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside the order dated 27.12.2016 is allowed. The said award is set aside.
21. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by Shirish Aggarwal Shirish (Announced in the open court Aggarwal Date: 2025.05.02 on 02.05.2025) 16:41:46 +0530 (Dr. Shirish Aggarwal) District Judge-03 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, New Delhi ARBTN No.464/17 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. DMRC & Anr. 5/5