The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S Chintels India Ltd. vs M/S Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltdconsisting of Justice VibhuBakhrunoted that it is impermissible for the court to re-appreciate the evidence and supplant its opinion over that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Facts
The petitioner (‘Chintels’) filed the present petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) impugning an arbitral award (‘impugned award’).The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with the construction of Phase-II of the Project that was awarded to the respondent (BBPL) by the petitioner on 09.12.2011.
On 22.01.2013, Chintels informed BBPL regarding the slow pace of Phase–II of the Project and sought for rectification of certain items. When BBPL sought for an extension of time, Chintels granted an extension of time upto 27.10.2014 without the imposition of any liquidated damages.Chintels removed various item of works pertaining from the scope of work awarded to BBPL and engaged other contractors to perform the same, which was informed to BBPL. In February 2017, bank guarantees furnished by BBPL were invoked as it claimed that BBPL had failed in its contractual obligations. BBPL issued a notice dated 24.03.2017 and invoked the Arbitration Clause as contained in the Contract. BBPL filed its Statement of Claims and raised a total of eleven claims, while Chintels also five certain counterclaims.By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal partly allowed BBPL’s claims.The Arbitral Tribunal awarded various sum of money with respect to Claim nos. 1,2,3,4 and 9. Future interest at the rate of 9% p.a, was to apply if the awarded amount was not paid within ninety days of the impugned award. The counterclaims raised by Chintels were rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.Aggrieved, Chintels filed the present petition.
The present petition was heard along with OMP(COMM) 444/2019– the application filed by Chintelsu/s 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 03.05.2019 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of the disputes relating to Phase-I of the Project, where some claims raised are similar to claims raised herein.
Contentions Made
Appellant: As per Clause 2.6 of the Contract, Chintels had an unqualified right to increase and decrease BBPL’s scope of work wherein it was expressly provided that the Contractor (BBPL) would not be entitled to make any claim regarding the same. The Arbitral Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence on record. An award of ₹81,28,750/-, awarded in favour of BBPL against non-payment of RA Bills (Claim No.4), was unintelligible.
Respondent: Counsel adopted the submissions made by him in respect of Claim Nos.1, 2 and 4, as awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal, in respect of Contract relating to Phase-I. For Claim no. 4 it was contended that there were documents on record, which reflected the calculation of the amount of ₹81,28,750/-.
Observations of the Court
While rejecting Chintels’ challenge to the amount awarded against Claim No.1, the Benchnoted that it is impermissible for the court to re-appreciate the evidence and supplant its opinion over that of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal is the final adjudicator of the quality and quantity of the evidence and unless it is established that the said decision is perverse and vitiates the impugned award on the ground of patent illegality, the arbitral award cannot be interfered with.
It found merit in the contentions that the awards against Claim Nos. 2 to 4 cannot be sustained as the same wereunintelligible. Regarding Claim No. 4, it was unable to ascertain as to how the Arbitral Tribunal computed the figure of ₹81,28,750/-.
Judgment
The impugned award to the extent the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded against Claim Nos. 2 to 4 were set aside and the petition was allowed to such extent.
Case:M/S Chintels India Ltd.vs M/S Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: O.M.P.(COMM.) 445/2019
Bench: Justice VibhuBakhru
Decided on: 8th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
