Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs M/S Ncc Ltd on 27 March, 2015
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.03.2015
+ FAO (OS) 146/2015
UNION OF INDIA .... Appellant
versus
M/S NCC LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Ruchir Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Rohit Gandhi and Ms Tanya Rawat, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
Cav301/2015
The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent is present. The
caveat stands discharged.
CM No.5682/2015 (for condonation of delay)
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM No.5681/2015 (for exemption )
The exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO (OS) 146/2015 and CM No.5680/2015
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2014 passed
by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 1510/2014 which
was a petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award dated 16.6.2014.
2. The only controversy which was there before the learned Single
Judge was whether Clause 19 of the Contract would be applicable or
another Clause 19A which, according to the appellant, had replaced
Clause 19, would be applicable. Clause 19 permitted the lodgement of
claim for escalation even in respect of contracts which had a tenure of 24
months. Clause 19A which is sought to be invoked by the appellant
prescribes such a claim for escalation in respect of contracts having a
tenure of more than 24 months.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant
had taken a policy decision that no escalation can be claimed in respect of
contracts having a tenure of 24 months or less than 24 months and that
the Clause was generally included in all contracts. He submits that
inadvertently the said clause 19A has not been included in the contract in
question.
4. The learned Single Judge has examined this aspect of the matter
and, in our view, correctly observed as under:
"According to me, the learned arbitrator has
proceeded in accordance with the terms of the
contract. As a matter of fact, if the learned
arbitrator had taken into account clause 19A,
which the petitioner relies upon, he would have
stepped outside the periphery of the contract and
would have committed a patent error. In these
circumstances, this submission of the petitioner
has to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly."
5. Consequently, we are also of the view that it is the clause in the
contract which would have to be followed and not some other clause
which may have been left out inadvertently. No fault can be found with
the learned Arbitrator in proceeding with the arbitration in terms of
specific conditions and clauses of the contract and in particular clause 19
thereof. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Even as regards that question of interest, we are not inclined to
take a different view from that taken by the learned Arbitrator and the
learned Single Judge.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MARCH 27, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SV
