S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

8. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the judgement passed by the commercial court is a result of non-application of mind to the dispute before the court. Submissions have been made that the commercial court has passed the judgement in a wholly mechanical manner, without even adverting to the factual aspect of the matter. 3 ARPL No. 206 of 2025

9. Submissions have been made that before the Arbitrator, claims under 11 distinct heads were raised, out of which under 9 heads, award was made in favour of the appellant and counter-claim was rejected and the application under Section 34 of the Act was restricted only qua 6 claims awarded in favour of the appellant and the rejection of the counter-claim.

10. It is further submitted that in fact the award made under 3 heads by the Arbitrator has already been paid to the appellant, however, the Commercial Court, though no challenge was laid to other claims awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal and in fact paid, by dealing with only claim awarded due to the delayed completion of project, which determination also is wholly incorrect, has set aside the entire award, which determination deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Learned counsel for the Union of India could not dispute the submissions made pertaining to the limited extent of challenge laid under Section 34 of the Act, payment of rest of the award having been made and that passing of the judgement by the commercial court de hors the challenge laid.

12. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. A bare perusal of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and challenge laid under Section 34 of the Act by the respondent, it is apparent that the challenge laid was limited only to the extent of six claims and rejection of counter-claim. However, the Commercial Court though noticed the challenge laid, in a wholly misguided manner and apparently without even looking at the record of the case has dealt with only one issue, which arose in the application under Section 34 of the Act i.e. pertaining to the award of compensation for delayed completion of work under Claim 5(a), 5(c) & 5(d) only.

14. The manner in which the judgement has been passed by the Commercial Court leaves much to be desired and is reflective of a total non-application of mind to the subject matter and the extent of the challenge laid. Out of 6 claims under challenge only 3 were dealt with and not a word has been indicated qua the rest. Even the issue dealt with is in 4 ARPL No. 206 of 2025 a wholly curosry manner and as such, the judgement cannot be sustained.

15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgement dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Commercial Court is quashed and set aside.

16. The matter is remanded back to the Commercial Court, Bareilly for re-hearing and deciding the same afresh based on the submissions made and the record of the case. August 29, 2025 (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

8. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the judgement passed by the commercial court is a result of non-application of mind to the dispute before the court. Submissions have been made that the commercial court has passed the judgement in a wholly mechanical manner, without even adverting to the factual aspect of the matter. 3 ARPL No. 206 of 2025

9. Submissions have been made that before the Arbitrator, claims under 11 distinct heads were raised, out of which under 9 heads, award was made in favour of the appellant and counter-claim was rejected and the application under Section 34 of the Act was restricted only qua 6 claims awarded in favour of the appellant and the rejection of the counter-claim.

10. It is further submitted that in fact the award made under 3 heads by the Arbitrator has already been paid to the appellant, however, the Commercial Court, though no challenge was laid to other claims awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal and in fact paid, by dealing with only claim awarded due to the delayed completion of project, which determination also is wholly incorrect, has set aside the entire award, which determination deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Learned counsel for the Union of India could not dispute the submissions made pertaining to the limited extent of challenge laid under Section 34 of the Act, payment of rest of the award having been made and that passing of the judgement by the commercial court de hors the challenge laid.

12. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. A bare perusal of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and challenge laid under Section 34 of the Act by the respondent, it is apparent that the challenge laid was limited only to the extent of six claims and rejection of counter-claim. However, the Commercial Court though noticed the challenge laid, in a wholly misguided manner and apparently without even looking at the record of the case has dealt with only one issue, which arose in the application under Section 34 of the Act i.e. pertaining to the award of compensation for delayed completion of work under Claim 5(a), 5(c) & 5(d) only.

14. The manner in which the judgement has been passed by the Commercial Court leaves much to be desired and is reflective of a total non-application of mind to the subject matter and the extent of the challenge laid. Out of 6 claims under challenge only 3 were dealt with and not a word has been indicated qua the rest. Even the issue dealt with is in 4 ARPL No. 206 of 2025 a wholly curosry manner and as such, the judgement cannot be sustained.

15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgement dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Commercial Court is quashed and set aside.

16. The matter is remanded back to the Commercial Court, Bareilly for re-hearing and deciding the same afresh based on the submissions made and the record of the case. August 29, 2025 (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad