Union of India through Executive Engineer v. Counsel for
Case Details
11. Learned counsel for the Union of India could not dispute the submissions 3 ARPL No. 205 of 2025 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 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 very limited only to the extent of two claims and rejection of counter-claim. However, the Commercial Court though noticed the challenge laid pertaining to the claim on account of refund of GST and award of interest by the Arbitral Tribunal, in a wholly misguided manner and apparently without even looking at the record of the case has dealt with the issue, which did not arise in the application under Section 34 of the Act at all i.e. pertaining to the award of compensation for delayed completion of work.
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 essentially misuse of technology whereby apparently from the other judgement passed between the same parties, a part of the determination has been copy pasted in the present case, which action of the Presiding Officer of the Commercial Court cannot be appreciated and vitiates the judgement impugned.
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. (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) August 29, 2025 NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11. Learned counsel for the Union of India could not dispute the submissions 3 ARPL No. 205 of 2025 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 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 very limited only to the extent of two claims and rejection of counter-claim. However, the Commercial Court though noticed the challenge laid pertaining to the claim on account of refund of GST and award of interest by the Arbitral Tribunal, in a wholly misguided manner and apparently without even looking at the record of the case has dealt with the issue, which did not arise in the application under Section 34 of the Act at all i.e. pertaining to the award of compensation for delayed completion of work.
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 essentially misuse of technology whereby apparently from the other judgement passed between the same parties, a part of the determination has been copy pasted in the present case, which action of the Presiding Officer of the Commercial Court cannot be appreciated and vitiates the judgement impugned.
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. (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) August 29, 2025 NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad