Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants  ||  Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically  ||  Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs  ||  Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders  ||  Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income  ||  SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law    

Esteem Projects Private Limited vs. Lloyd Insulations India Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (05 Dec 2022)

It is impermissible for a court to re-evaluate the material on record and supplant its view over that of the arbitral tribunal

MANU/DE/4963/2022

Arbitration

The Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning a judgment passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby the Appellant's application under Section 34 of the A and C Act, seeking to set aside an interim arbitral award was rejected. The limited question that falls for consideration to this Court is whether the impugned award, rejecting the Appellant's contention that the claim preferred by the Respondent is barred by limitation, is vitiated by patent illegality.

There is no dispute that the Appellant had withheld the payment of the amount of ₹37,00,000 from the amounts due and payable to the Respondent. In the statement of accounts, furnished by the Appellant, an amount was reflected as "10% retention towards anticipated liability". However, further correspondence indicates that the Appellant had treated the said amount as liquidated damages for failure to execute the work within time. The Appellant had called upon the Respondent to provide an explanation and justification for the delay in the context of levy of such liquidated damages. The Respondent had provided such explanation, however, the amount withheld was not released.

It is not in dispute that if the extension of time was permitted by the Appellant, the same would have bearing on the levy of liquidated damages. The correspondence does indicate that the Appellant had sought for details for examining whether the extension of time was justified.

The question as to when did the 'breaking point' arise in this case is a question of fact. The Arbitral Tribunal had examined this question and found that the Respondent had unequivocally denied the respondent's claim for the first time in response to its legal notice. The notice invoking arbitration was issued on 23.12.2015, which is within a period of three years of the Appellant's communication seeking documents in connection with the extension of time. This Court is unable to accept that, in the given facts, the said decision that the Respondent's claims are not barred by limitation, is vitiated by patent illegality on the face of the award. The Arbitral Tribunal's view is a plausible one.

It is settled law that, it is impermissible for a court to re-evaluate the material on record and supplant its view over that of the arbitral tribunal in proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act. In Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited; the Supreme Court had explained that even if it is accepted that the arbitral tribunal has committed an error, the same would not vitiate the arbitral award on the ground of patent illegality. The ground of patent illegality is available if it strikes at the root of the matter and is ex facie apparent on the face of the record.

Given the limited scope of examination under Section 34 of the A and C Act, this Court finds no fault with the learned Commercial Court in declining the Appellant's application to set aside the impugned award. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : CLAIM   LIMITATION   ARBITRAL AWARD  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved