Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'Arbitration Act') has been filed with the following prayer :­ "(a) Set aside the impugned award dated 29.08.2019 to the effect that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has rejected the counter claims Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

1. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure PVt. Ltd., Regd. Off.

302, DLF Tower 'B', Jasola, New Delhi­110025 (E­mail­ [email protected])

2. The Executive Engineer (MB­I), Dilli Haat, Janakpuri, Behind DTC Bus Depot, Hari Nagar, Opp. Virender Nagar, Janakpuri, New Delhi­110058 (E­mail­ [email protected]) Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court) /SE/Saket/ND/15.10.2020 Under the circumstances the application of the Claimant dated 06.07.2019 is not allowed and the same is dismissed. (B) Counter Claims on behalf of Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) by the Respondent. The Respondent during the hearing on 08.07.2019 submitted its Statement of Counter Claims (five in numbers). The Claimant submitted that it would file its reply to the Counter Claims before the same is considered and decided by AT. The Claimant filed its reply on 19.08.2019. The oral arguments were taken up during the hearing held on 21.08.2019.

38. Another challenge / grievance of the petitioner to the impugned Award is that the reasons for the decision has been given subsequent to the dismissal of the counter claim and Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court) /SE/Saket/ND/15.10.2020 amendment application of claimant and the reasons has not been given on the same date and that it amounts to misconduct on the part of the Learned Arbitrator. It was also argued that an application was submitted by the petitioner herein by sending the same on the e­mail of the Learned Arbitrator on 27.08.2019 i.e. one day before 29.08.2019 when the reasons for dismissal of counter claim and rejection of amendment application of claimant was given by the Learned Arbitrator. It was argued that non­consideration of that application is a patent illegality in the impugned Award. Both of these contentions raised by the learned counsel does not hold water in view of the detailed reasons given by the Learned Arbitrator for dismissing the counter claim having been submitted at a belated stage and also being beyond reference of the dispute by the Appointing Authority to the Learned Arbitrator. On perusal of the Annexure­ P1 appended to the order dated 29.08.2019, it is noticed that the impugned order dismissing the counter claim is dated 23.08.2019 and on 29.08.2019, the Learned Arbitrator has issued the ordersheet of hearing dated 21.08.2019 and 23.08.2019. The ordersheet of the hearing dated 23.08.2019 in para 3 (i) and (ii) are regarding dismissal of the application of the claimant dated 06.07.2019 and counter claim of the respondent. Para 3 of the ordersheet dated 23.08.2019 is relevant and reproduced hereunder:­ "3. The AT agreed with the submission of the Respondent and conveyed its decision Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.