Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs / on 16 October, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :06.10.2025
Pronounced on :16.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Arbitration Appeal (CAD)No.18 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.28697 of 2024
The Superintending Engineer,
Pubic Works Department,
New Veeranam Plan.
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
(Present New Address:
The Superintending Engineer,
Water Resources Department,
Vellar Basin Circle,
Cuddalore). ..Appellant/Appellant/Respondent
/versus/
M/s RPP Infra Project Ltd.,
Erode-11,
(Respondent's name formerly known as
M/s RPP Constructions (P) Ltd.,
(Amended as per Order in
I.A.No.799/2022 dated 30.06.2022). ..Respondent/Respondent/Claimant
Prayer: Arbitration Appeal has been filed under 37(1) and (2) of the
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 13 of Commercial Court
Act, 2015, praying to set aside the judgment dated 29th August 2023 passed in
Arbitration Original Petition No.55 of 2015 on the file of Principal District
Court, Cuddalore) confirming the Award dated 27.08.2014 passed by the
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.P.Sivasubramanian(Retired) the Sole Arbitrator.
For Appellant :Mr.Ramanlal, AAG for
Mr.D.Ravichander, Spl.G.P
For Respondent :Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.R.Nishanth
-------
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.)
The Public Works Department in the Government of TamilNadu
through its Superintending Engineer, Chidambaram, invited tender from
qualified contractors on 07.08.1996 for improvements to Vadavar Channel
from Reach LS 18/0 km to 21/8 km in Kattumannar Koil Taluk. The value of
the work was estimated at Rs.3,93,51,272.50. The time for completion was
fixed as 24 months ( inclusive of monsoon and irrigation period).
2. M/s RPP Construction (P) Ltd., a Class I Contractor of PWD and
CPWD, participated in the tender and its offer was accepted by PWD
resulting in agreement dated 22.09.1997.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
3. For Convenient sake, wherever necessary, the appellant herein is
referred as PWD and the respondent herein is referred as Contractor.
4. The work by the contractor commenced on 01.03.1998. The
work was admittedly not completed within 24 months i.e by 29.02.2000.
While carrying out the preliminary work of clearing the site, variation
between the tender quantities and the quantities present in the site was
noticed. Hence, there was change in the design of the proposed channel
Section by lowering the bed level by 90 cm. After submitting the consent
letter for execution of the work, as per the changed design, the contractor
commenced the work in anticipation of approval. PWD proposed a
supplemental agreement dated 27.03.2004 to substitute pre cast slabs for side
lining instead of brick lining since the good quality bricks were not available.
5. The Contractor completed the work on 15.08.2004 after getting
extension of time thrice. The Contractor claimed pending bill with escalation
cost of work fixing PWD as responsible for the delay and additional cost for
the work done after the change in design and specifications. However, the
PWD declined to entertain the request for additional cost and escalation cost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
When the Contractor sought the appointment of an Adjudicator to resolve the
issue, PWD declined the request stating the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, which came into force before the date of tender agreement, does not
contemplate the dispute resolution through an Adjudicator. The contractor,
therefore, invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement, sought
appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute. However, the Chief
Engineer of PWD rejected the request for reference to arbitration, citing that
the claim is barred by limitation. Hence, the Contractor, filed Original
Petition before the High Court invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, and prayed for the appointment of an Arbitrator to
resolve the dispute. The Hon’ble High Court at Madras, allowed O.P.No.109
of 2007 filed by the Contractor, on 20.11.2007 and appointed a former Judge
of the Madras High Court as the sole Arbitrator.
6. Before the Learned Arbitrator, the Contractor as claimant made a
cumulative claim of Rs.3,63,84,546/- with further interest at the rate of 24%
per annum from 01.02.2008 till the date of actual payment. The claims under
different heads with specification put under 5 broad heads are as below:-
Summary of claims:
Claim-I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
Payment towards price adjustment for the period under
Extension of time and for additional quantities and
additional items executed =Rs.79,24,824/-
Claim-II
Payments towards interest on the belatedly paid bills for work
done including price adjustment payment. =Rs.1,53,73,497/-
Claim-III
Payment towards compaction allowance for the
conveyed earth =Rs.14,76,736/-
Claim-IV
Repayment of the deduction wrongly made
from the Claimant's Bill =Rs.3,62,592/-
Claim-V ---------------------
Payment towards the compensation events =Rs.1,12,46,897/-
---------------------
---------------------
Total Cumulative Claim as on 31.01.2008 =Rs.3,63,84,546/-
---------------------
(Rupees Three Crores Sixty Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand
Five Hundred Forty Six only)
7. Denying the claim, the PWD filed counter stating that, the
Contractor has not executed the work at the place which was expected to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
done. He did not complete the work within the time stipulated in the
agreement. Delay in completion of work in time was due to the lack of
commitment on the part of the Contractor. The time prescribed for
completion of work was 24 months. Whereas, at the end of 24 months, the
Contractor completed less than 45% of the work only. The extension of time
was granted by the Engineer on condition the Contractor is not eligible for
escalation cost. The decision of the Engineer has not been objected by the
Contractor by exercising Clause 24.1 of the agreement. In case of any
objection to the decision of the Engineer, reference to arbitration should be
sought within 14 days under Clause 25.3 of the agreement. The Contractor
having failed to exercise the said option in time, cannot question the decision
of the Engineer which has become final and not arbitral.
8. Referring to the claims under different heads, the PWD
contented that the claim before the Arbitrator under 5 different heads is not
bona fide and is baseless. It varies and is excessive than the claim, which has
been mentioned in the O.P No.107 of 2007 before the High Court. The
agreement dated 22.09.1997 speaks about dispute resolution through
arbitration. While so, the contractor first sought for adjudication, which is not
contemplated under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
contend that the request for adjudication is to be construed as request for
arbitration.
9. The contractor completed the work on 13.08.2004. The defect
liability period of one year has ended on 12.08.2005. As per agreement, either
party is entitled to bring any claim within 28 days from the expiry of defect
liability period. The request for arbitration ought to have been made to the
Chief Engineer, PWD, within the said period. Whereas, in this case the
Contractor did not make his claim within the said period before the Chief
Engineer as contemplated under the agreement. Contrarily, his request dated
20.05.2005 was made to the Executive Engineer, PWD, who is not the
competent authority. By the time, the contractor made his request to the Chief
Engineer on 08.10.2005, the time prescribed to refer dispute to the arbitrator
expired. In order to cover the mistake, the claimant had suppressed his earlier
request which he addressed to the Executive Engineer. Therefore, the claim is
to be rejected holding that the claim is barred by limitation and not arbitrable.
10. Considering the rival plea, the Learned Arbitrator has framed
the following Issues:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
1.Whether the claim under the Arbitration
proceeding is within the period of limitation?
2.Whether the claimant has contested the
decision of the Executive Engineer and if so whether
such claims before the Arbitral Tribunal are
sustainable?
3.Whether the claimant is entitled to price
escalation during the extended period?
4.Whether the claimant is entitled to price
variation on the execution of the main work as well as
additional work executed by them?
5.Whether the delay in completion of the
work was due to the claimant or the respondent?
6.Whether the claimant is entitled for
compaction allowance at the rate of 15% on the
compacted quantity of the conveyed earth?
7.Whether the claimant is entitled to
compensation due to the alleged delay in granting
approval for additional quantities/works?
8.Whether the deduction of Rs.2,01,342/- is
sustainable on the audit objection without notice to
the claimant?
9.Whether the claimant is entitled for
interest on the amounts allegedly due and on the
additional works said to have been executed by the
claimant?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
10.To what relief the parties are entitled to?
11. On considering the oral evidence on behalf of the
Contractor/claimant and on behalf of PWD/respondent and on examining the
documentary evidence marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-68. Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 , the
learned Arbitrator passed award on 27.08.2014 as below:-
1.Claim No.I:
Claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.36,03,645/- with
interst at 18% p.a. from 08.10.2008 till date of realisation.
2.Claim No.II:
Claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.93,66,700/- with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a from 31.1.2008 till date of
realisation.
3.Claim No.III:
Claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,11,125/- with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a from 08.10.2005 till date of
realisation.
3.Claim No.IV:
Claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,01,342/- with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a from 08.10.2005 till date of
realisation.
3.Claim No.V:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
(a)Idle charges for machineries :Rs.8,35,000/-
(b)Idle charges towards establishment :Rs.12,33,480/-
(c)Expenses due to erosion of work :Rs.23,08,500/-
(d)Interest on retention money :Rs.19,74,060/-
--------------------
Total :Rs.63,51,040/-
--------------------
Hence, under this claim the claimant is entitled to a
sum of Rs.63,51,040/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from
08.10.2005 till date of realisation.
12. Being aggrieved, the PWD filed Arbitration O.P.No.55 of 2015
under Section 34 r/w Section 65(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, before the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, contending that the
Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, which was raised
beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the arbitral
proceedings were not maintainable. As a consequence, the award dated
27.08.2014 is liable to be set aside. It was further contended that the
Arbitrator has acted with a partisan attitude and the award does not reflect the
contentions raised by the PWD. The issues decided in favour of the
Contractor were rendered without assigning adequate reasons. Particularly,
the award of interest at the rate of 18% p.a., is beyond the scope of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the terms of the agreement.
The Arbitrator erred in awarding interest in addition to escalation cost,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
thereby, enriching the Contractor unjustly.
13. After hearing the Contractor, the Original Petition filed by
PWD was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore,
holding that the award passed by the Arbitrator was well-reasoned and
supported by the sufficient materials. The petition filed by the PWD does not
fall within the scope and parameter fixed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.
14. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Original Petition
confirming the award passed by the sole Arbitrator, the PWD has preferred
the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
15. In the Appeal under consideration, it is contended that the
award passed by the Arbitrator, without appreciating the correct interpretation
of the provisions of the Act, has led to miscarriage of justice. The appellate
Court failed to take into account the violation of public policy committed by
the Arbitrator. Clause 25.3 of the agreement had fixed 28 days for issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
notice to express the intention for reference of dispute to the Arbitrator and
such notice should be addressed to the Chief Engineer having jurisdiction
over the work.
16. Admittedly, in this case, the Contractor had not followed the
procedure contemplated under Clause 25.3 of the agreement. The letter dated
08.10.2005 addressed to the Chief Engineer for appointment of an Arbitrator,
being a time barred request, was rightly rejected by PWD. However, neither
the Arbitrator nor the Appellate Court had considered the vital question of
law regarding the maintainability of the arbitral proceedings and crucial fact
that the delay in completing the work was totally attributable to the non co-
operation of the Contractor.
17. The Arbitrator as well as the Appellate Court, without assigning
any reasons, shifted the blame on PWD, alleging that by granting extension
of time, PWD had agreed to compensate for price escalation and other costs.
The direction to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a., is illegal and not
sustainable. The said portion of the award is not in conformity with the terms
of contract between the parties and it is opposed to the public policy of the
State. The PWD never agreed for price escalation, while extending the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
for completion.
18. The letter correspondence between the Contractor and the PWD
establishes the fact that the delay in completion of work was due to lack of
commitment on the part of the Contractor. Despite sufficient proof, the
Arbitrator held that the delay in completion of work was due to non co-
operation of the PWD. The work executed by the Contractor in anticipation
of approval of a supplementary agreement, ought not to have been relied
upon by the Arbitrator.
19. Hence, the appellate Court erred in relying upon the statement
of the Contractor to claim additional amounts for strengthening the
vulnerable portion of the bank in order to avoid breaches during the
monsoon. The statement of the Contractor that he expected approval for
conveying earth work from a borrow area in Veeranam tank and carried out
the work due to “functional necessity” ought not to have been taken into
account to enrich the Contractor beyond the scope of agreement and terms of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
the contract.
20. Extension of time was accorded to the contractor after
specifically informing him that the extension was granted only for
completion of the project and not for any financial advantage. The project,
which was to be completed within 24 months, was dragged for years together
under one pretext or another and was actually completed only on 15.08.2004.
For his own fault, the Contractor demanded additional charges with interest.
The Arbitrator as well as the Principal District Judge without any basis has
allowed the claim. While seeking extension of time, the Contractor never
insisted on price escalation or any other advantage. While so, without any
reason, after committing the delays in completion of work, the Contractor
sought escalation costs with interest and the Arbitrator as well as the
appellate Court had erroneously acceded the relief contrary to the public
policy.
21. The work carried out by the Contractor without a specific
request from the Department and without consent of the field Engineer does
not entitle to any payment. All additional work is alleged to have been done
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
by the contractor, without written request from the PWD, ought to have been
rejected. Contrarily, the Arbitrator had rejected only a few claims that were
not backed by the agreement but allowed the rest of the claim, even though
they were unsupported by any request from the PWD.
22. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant submitted that the award passed by the Arbitrator is perverse and
contrary to public policy. While so, the appellate Court, without proper
appreciation of the evidence and other materials placed on record by the
PWD, had confirmed the award and dismissed the application filed by the
PWD. Hence, for the grounds raised above, the award of the Arbitrator has to
be set aside.
23. In short, the contention of the appellant/PWD is that, in the
absence of any approval or request for transporting earth work from outside,
for completion of the work, the Contractor's actions are contrary to the
principles of law. The cost for laying of pre-cast slabs and substitute bricks
which was carried out by the Contractor, on his own discretion and not at the
request of PWD, cannot be mulched on the PWD. The Contractor completed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
the work with much delay only after being put on notice that he would forfeit
the deposits and also be liable for liquidated damages. In these
circumstances, the Arbitrator erred in passing the award in favour of the
Contractor.
24. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the Arbitrator had gone in detail with each of the issues and
assigned reasons for accepting or for rejecting the claim. The communication
between the Contractor and PWD, which are marked as Ex.C5 to Ex.C-42A
clearly show that, the letters for seeking extension of time had explicitly
stated the reasons. Based on the reasons, such extension of time was granted
by PWD. The conduct of the PWD was the cause for delay. The admissions
of the site Engineer and the report given to the Chief Engineer were taken
note by the Arbitrator to conclude that the delay in completing the work was
due to the conduct of PWD.
25. In respect of payment of escalation cost for price adjustment,
on the additional work, the witness for the PWD admitted before the
Arbitrator that the claimant was entitled for price escalation during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
extended period. From the records, the Arbitrator found that there was wilful
retention of money by the PWD and the same was released belatedly, which
warrants payment of interests. While Clause 43.1 of the contract provides for
interest at the rate of 10% for the belated payment between 28 days and 70
days, after the work defect liability period, the claimant is awarded interest at
the rate of 18% p.a.
26. Being a works contract, which is commercial in nature, the
claimant though entitled for interest at the rate of 24% p.a. the learned
Arbitrator restricted the rate of interest to 18% p.a., which is reasonable and
within the limits prescribed under the RBI rate of interest in terms of the
agreement.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Airport Metro Express
Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation reported in [2022(9) SCC
286], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the usage of
expression “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” emphasised that when the
parties have agreed for 10% p.a., interest, in case of delayed payment, the
Arbitrator cannot substitute it with 18% p.a. interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
28. The first contention of the appellant/PWD is that the reference
of the dispute to the Arbitrator is barred by limitation. Referring to the terms
of agreement, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the failure on the part of the contractor to make a written
request to the Chief Engineer, PWD for reference to the Arbitrator within 14
days, goes to the root of the matter.
29. This Court is unable to countenance the above submission,
since the records reveal that ever since there was delay in payment, the
Contractor has been repeatedly requesting PWD for release the payment of
bills. When the PWD officials were not inclined to act as per the terms of the
agreement, the Contractor had requested the Executive Engineer, PWD, to
refer the matter to the adjudicator as per the terms of the agreement.
However, the said request has been arbitrarily declined by the PWD, citing
that, after enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the scope of
appointing the Adjudicator under the new Act, is not permissible.
30. Infact, when the terms of the agreement were signed, though it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
was after Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came into force, the
agreement only refers the old Arbitration Act, 1940. When the PWD was
aware of the dispute and the Contractor was inclined to resolve the dispute
through alternate dispute resolution, there was no reason for not constituting
an Arbitral Tribunal as per the agreement. This has forced the Contractor to
approach the High Court to seek a direction for appointment of an Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator in this case was appointed by the High Court, after hearing the
PWD and on considering the provisions of the agreement.
31. There is no infirmity or illegality in the appointment of the sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, which has been placed before the High
Court by the Contractor and only on being satisfied with the nature of the
dispute, the Arbitrator has been appointed and he has adjudicated the dispute
as per the provisions of law. It is unreasonable for the PWD to keep on
agitating about the appointment of an Arbitrator, when the agreement speaks
about the dispute redressal through Arbitrator. In this case, since the PWD
failed to appoint the Arbitrator, on request of the Contractor, he has resorted
to legal recourse and got remedy of the Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the
Contractor has placed records to substantiate his claim. The arbitrator has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
gone through the records threadbare and given reasons for allowing the few
claims as well as for rejecting certain claims.
32. It is apparent from the records that the Contractor was not able
to complete the work due to the attitude of the PWD officials, who had
floated the tender without a proper assessment of the site. Thereafter, when
the field was clear and the site was assessed, they found that the
specifications mentioned in the tender and the quantities required are
inadequate. The PWD have voluntarily given the first extension of time and
revised the designs and requirements to enable successful and effective
completion of the project. Having extracted additional work it is
inappropriate on the part of the PWD to plead that there was no written
agreement for the additional work. It is not the case of the PWD that the
contractor has not done the additional work, but their only pleading is that the
additional work carried by PWD was not on the written request or approval
by the Site Engineer.
33. It is to be noted that all the work done on behalf of the PWD is
to be supervised and recorded in the M-Book by the responsible officer and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
the same has to be supervised periodically by the Superior Officer. For the
reason best known, the PWD had not thought fit to place the M-Book before
the Arbitrator to disprove the claim of the contractor. Infact, they admitted
that the Contractor completed the work. They only harp on delay in
requesting to refer the matter for arbitration. This plea is flimsy and baseless.
34. The Arbitrator having considered all these facts had passed the
award assigning the reasons, that are legally justifiable and sustainable.
35. The next contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate
General on behalf of the appellant is regarding the rate of interest imposed for
delayed payment.
36. Admittedly, this is a money dispute arising out of a commercial
contract. The Contractor had claimed 24% interest, whereas the Arbitrator
has filed 18% p.a., excluding the period between 28 days, the time fixed for
raising dispute and 70 days the day on which the request for appointing
Arbitrator made by the Contractor. As per the terms of the agreement, for
delayed payment 10% p.a., interest is chargeable. The delay meant in this
Clause is not a perpetual and unreasonable delay. In this case, for the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
which fall under reasonable delay, the Arbitrator had excluded and interest is
levied only for the period thereafter. He had fixed 18% p.a., as interest taking
into consideration the nature of the contract and RBI rate of interest. Hence,
we find no perversity in fixing 18% p.a interest.
37. While so, the appellate Court being aware of its limitation
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, had
confirmed the award and dismissed the appeal. Under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of the High Court to
interfere with the award of the Arbitrator and the order of the appellate Court
passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is well-determined by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Somdatt Builders – NCC -NEC(JV)v.
National Highways Authority of India and others reported in [2025 INSC
113].
38. Unless and until apparent perversity and violation of public
policy of India is made out, the award of the Arbitrator need not be interfered.
In this case, we find that the arbitrator had acted judiciously and the award
does not suffer from any infirmity. It is the appellant herein, who has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
instituted the appeal raising frivolous grounds with an oblique intention to
deprive the lawful claim of the contractor.
39. Hence, this Arbitration Appeal is dismissed with cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the respondent. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
16.10.2025
Index:yes
Internet:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
ari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
ari
delivery judgment made in
Arb.Appeal(CAD) No.18 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
Arb.Appeal.(CAD)No.18 of 2024
and
16.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 11:46:23 am )
