Delhi High Court: Courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless the decision of Arbitrator is illegal.
December 13, 2024
The Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Vs. Surya Engineers’ emphasized the limited scope of judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). By upholding the arbitral award, the Delhi High Court reinforced that contractual disputes should be resolved within the framework of arbitration with minimal interference from courts.
Background of the case:
The dispute originated from a contract awarded by Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as a “Petitioner”) as to M/S Surya Engineers (hereinafter referred to as a “Defendant”) for the construction of the NSIT Complex (Phase-III, Part II) in Dwarka, New Delhi. The agreement which was signed on August 29, 2003, included construction of the library and computer centre. The project was supposed to be completed within 16 months, ending on December 23, 2004.
During execution of the project, delay emerged due to several factors. Petitioner alleged that the Defendant failed to adhere to the agreed-upon timelines, with only 49% of the work completed by May 9, 2005, beyond the original deadline. As a result, the contract was rescinded, and the remaining work was assigned to outsourced to another contractor, with Petitioner claiming damages for the delay, increased costs, and losses due to the extended project timeline.
On the other hand, the Defendant contended that the delays were caused by Petitioner’s failure to provide essential structural drawings and timely approvals, which hindered progress.
The parties sought compensation for unpaid dues, damages for idling manpower and machinery, and lost profits from the rescinded contract. The matter went to arbitration, resulting in an award favouring Defendant. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act to set aside the award, which was dismissed.
Subsequently, Petitioner filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
Issues before the Delhi High Court:
- Whether the delay in project completion attributable to Petitioner or Defendant?
- Whether the arbitrator err in awarding damages and rejecting Petitioner’s counterclaims?
- What is the permissible scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act?
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as Court) upheld the decision of Arbitrator, which concluded that the delays in project completion were primarily attributable to the Petitioner. The Court noted that while the Petitioner argued that all structural drawings had been provided to the Defendant between August and November 2003, the Drawing Entries Register revealed that revisions to these drawings continued until February 2005. As a result, the stipulated project completion date of December 23, 2004, became impractical due to the Petitioner's fault.
Additionally, the Court upheld the arbitrator's decision based on the letter dated April 19, 2005, which supported the contractor's claims that delays in providing structural drawings hindered proper planning for material procurement, such as steel, and thus slowed progress. The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the delays were insignificant or that the contractor had failed to raise objections in a timely manner. Furthermore, the allegations that the contractor had halted work due to cement shortages between March and April 2005 were dismissed. After reviewing the Cement Register, the Arbitrator concluded that, while work had slowed, it continued during this period with a consistent supply of cement.
The Court upheld the decision of Arbitrator to order the refund of the Defendants’ security deposit, agreeing that the rescission of the contract by Petitioner was unjust and illegal. As a result, the award of damages for the loss of materials, tools, shuttering equipment, and confiscation was also deemed valid. Regarding the quantification of damages, the Court noted that the Arbitrator had meticulously considered the stage of project completion, correspondence, and other relevant records. The Petitioner’s argument that the amounts awarded lacked justification was rejected, with the Court emphasizing the detailed rationale provided by the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator reduced the Defendant’s claim for 15% of expected profits to 2%, considering the progress of the project and the remaining tasks. Referencing A.T. Brij Paul Singh v. State of Gujarat, the Court affirmed the decision, deeming the reduced claim to be reasonable and consistent with legal principles.
Further, the Petitioner challenged the Arbitrator’s interpretation of Clause 10C, which governed payment escalation. The Arbitrator’s interpretation of escalation clauses and payment obligations was found to be within the bounds of reasonableness.
The decision of Arbitrator to grant interest on dues was also upheld. The Court reference to Consolidated Coffee Limited v Coffee Board and noted that Arbitrators have wide discretion in awarding interest, and such awards cannot be modified or reduced unless they are excessively disproportionate, which was not the case here.
Source:
- Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology v. M/S Surya Engineers & Another, O.M.P. (COMM) 48/2020 & I.A. 1401/2024 decided on 19/11/2024. The judgment can be accessed at below link:
- T. Brij Paul v State of Gujarat (1984) 4 SCC 59
- Consolidated Coffee Limited v Coffee Board (1980) 3 SCC 358
