O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 1 of 25

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 26.09.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 05.01.2026

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021& I.A. 335/2021, I.A. 336/2021, I.A.

5882/2024

M/S. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD

...Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior

Advocate with Mr Subhro Prokas

Mukherjee, Mr. Md Adil Khan,

Advs.

versus

ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ARMY HEADQUARTER

...Respondent

Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (“the Act”) has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the

arbitral award dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the

matter of “Supreme Infrastructure v. Engineer-in-chief, Army

Headquarter”.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 2 of 25

2. On 02.06.2010 the respondent (respondent in the Arbitral Proceedings)

issued a tender for construction of dwelling units including allied

services for Officers, JCOs and ORs at Babina. The petitioner (claimant

in the arbitral proceedings) participated in the tender process and was

awarded the contract for a total value of approximately Rs. 50.7 crores.

Pursuant thereto, a Contract Agreement was executed between the

parties on 01.11.2010, incorporating the General Conditions of Contract

governing military engineering works.

3. As per the contractual stipulations, the work was to be executed in three

phases, with completion schedules extending between the years 2011

and 2013. The petitioner commenced execution of the work after

mobilisation of men, machinery, tools, plant and materials at site.

4. According to the petitioner, from the inception of the project, execution

of the work was impeded on account of factors attributable to the

respondent, including delayed handing over of clear and obstruction-free

site, frequent changes in drawings and specifications, additional and

extra items of work, delayed approvals, and interruptions in execution

owing to administrative reasons. Further running account bills were not

processed and released in a timely manner, resulting in financial

constraints and disruption of work.

5. On 19.12.2014, the respondent cancelled the Contract, citing slow

progress and failure to adhere to milestones.

6. Since there were disputes between the parties in relation to termination

of the Contract and financial claims, the petitioner invoked the

arbitration clause. Upon the respondent’s failure to appoint an arbitrator,

the petitioner approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act and the

Sole Arbitrator was appointed.

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 3 of 25

7. The arbitral proceedings continued over several years. Pleadings were

completed, evidence was led, and detailed oral arguments were

addressed by both sides. Upon conclusion of arguments, the matter was

reserved for award in January 2019.

8. After a lapse of more than one year from reserving of the award, the Sole

Arbitrator reopened the proceedings and permitted the respondent to

amend its counter-claims. The amendment resulted in enhancement of

the quantum of counter-claims, which was stated to be on account of

correction of calculations. The petitioner objected to the amendment on

the ground that it caused serious prejudice and was permitted at an

advanced stage of the proceedings.

9. The Sole Arbitrator thereafter passed the impugned arbitral Award dated

13.08.2020. By the said Award, the Sole Arbitrator held that the

petitioner had abandoned the project, rejected the majority of the

petitioner’s claims including claims for prolongation costs, and allowed

substantial portions of the respondent’s counter-claims.

10. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the petitioner has approached this

Court by way of the present petition under Section 34 of the Act.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

11. Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that

the impugned arbitral award dated 13.08.2020 merits interference and is

liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act and has limited its

challenge on the sole ground that the petitioner did not have an

opportunity to contest the amended counter claims made by the

respondent.

12. It is submitted that the Sole Arbitrator has pronounced the impugned

Award based on amendment applications dated 31.10.2018 and

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 4 of 25

13.02.2020 filed by the respondent, without affording the petitioner a

fair, effective, and meaningful opportunity to contest the same. The

amendment application dated 31.10.2018 was never served upon the

petitioner, nor was any notice issued by the Sole Arbitrator. The

petitioner remained completely unaware of the existence of the said

application throughout the arbitral proceedings and came to know of it

only when the respondent filed its reply before this Hon’ble Court. There

is no material on record to show that the said amendment application

was ever argued or allowed by the Sole Arbitrator prior to reservation of

the matter for award.

13. Even with respect to the amendment application dated 13.02.2020, the

petitioner was heard only on a limited objection relating to delay and

was never granted an opportunity to contest the proposed amendment on

merits. Despite this, the Sole Arbitrator proceeded to allow the

amendment, as is evident from the impugned Award, without granting

the petitioner a full and effective hearing.

14. The impugned Award is further liable to be set aside as it is a non-

speaking and unreasoned award and does not fulfil the mandate of

Section 31(3) of the Act. Further, the Sole Arbitrator has failed to give

independent findings in individual items under the dispute as required

under Clause 60 of GCC.

15. It is submitted that the total contract value, after issuance of seven

deviation orders, stood at Rs. 54.83 crores. As on termination, work

worth Rs. 27.51 crores had already been executed, leaving a balance

work of approximately Rs. 27.31 crores. After accounting for escalation,

the respondent floated a risk and cost tender, pursuant to which the

balance work was awarded to a third party for Rs. 33.35 crores.

However, while adjudicating Claim No. 1, the Sole Arbitrator

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 5 of 25

erroneously assumed the risk and cost contract value to be Rs. 35.30

crores, which is unsupported by the record and has resulted in an inflated

award in favour of the respondent.

16. Learned counsel further submits that the issue of mobilization advance

has been completely misconstrued. It is contended that the petitioner had

completed nearly 50% of the work and that the entire mobilization

advance had already been recovered by the respondent through

deductions from running bills, strictly in accordance with the contract.

Despite this, the respondent, by way of a belated amendment application

dated 13.02.2020, altered the nature and quantum of its claim under the

guise of correcting a clerical error. The Sole Arbitrator allowed the said

amendment only in the final award, without granting the petitioner any

opportunity to contest the same on merits, thereby causing serious

prejudice.

17. It is also submitted that the Sole Arbitrator has wrongly allowed

recovery towards yardstick, even though no such counter-claim was

raised in the original statement of claim. The said claim was introduced

only through an amendment application dated 31.10.2018, which was

never served upon the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner was denied

any opportunity to contest the claim, and the same was allowed without

any evidence or reasons.

18. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned

Award suffers from non-application of mind, violation of the principles

of natural justice, and patent illegality on the face of the record, and is

therefore liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 6 of 25

19. Per contra, Mr. Vikram Jetly, learned CGSC appearing for the

respondent submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is an

attempt to convert proceedings under Section 34 of the Act 1996 into an

appeal on facts. It is submitted that the scope of interference under

Section 34 is extremely limited and does not permit re-appreciation of

evidence or substitution of the arbitral tribunal’s view with that of the

Court. It is stated that the impugned Award is a detailed and reasoned

award passed after considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions

of both parties.

20. Learned Counsel has denied the petitioner’s contention that it was denied

an opportunity to contest the counter-claims and submits that the said

allegation is contrary to the arbitral record. It is stated that the

respondent had initially preferred its counter claims in September 2018,

clearly indicating that the work executed by the petitioner was

approximately Rs. 23.30 crores and that the balance work was about Rs.

27.43 crores, while expressly stating that the counter claim amounts

were tentative and subject to audit and verification.

21. It is submitted that, from time to time, the respondent sought permission

from the Sole Arbitrator to amend Counter Claim No. 1, which liberty

was duly granted. The respondent explained that a clerical and

arithmetical error had occurred in the computation of Counter Claim No.

1, wherein the amount towards recovery of mobilisation advance and

interest had been deducted twice, resulting in an inadvertent reduction of

the counter claim. Applications under Section 23(3) of the Act were

moved to correct this error, and the petitioner was afforded full

opportunity to object to the same. The objections of the petitioner were

taken on record and considered by the Sole Arbitrator.

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 7 of 25

22. It is submitted that the Sole Arbitrator, after considering the objections,

allowed the amendment on the ground that the error was a simple and

obvious arithmetical mistake capable of correction at any stage, and

consequently determined Counter Claim No. 1 at Rs. 11,14,37,508.70. It

is contended that the petitioner never disputed the existence of the

arithmetical mistake, but only opposed the amendment on the ground of

delay.

23. The respondent further submits that, except for the first amended claim,

the value of work executed by the petitioner was consistently recorded as

approximately Rs. 27.51 crores, leaving a balance work of about Rs.

23.21 crores. On this basis, the respondent submits that the petitioner’s

allegation of inconsistency or patent error in computation is unfounded.

24. With respect to the challenge to the risk-and-cost tender, it is submitted

that the petitioner never raised this issue before the Sole Arbitrator and is

therefore barred from raising it for the first time in proceedings under

Section 34 of the Act. Without prejudice, it is contended that the

estimated cost of the balance work was correctly assessed on the basis of

prevailing rates, inflation, and the fact that the petitioner’s original bid

was substantially below market rates.

25. In view of the above contentions it is prayed that the petition is liable to

dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

26. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

27. In Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Software Technology

Parks of India, (2025) 7 SCC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

explained the scope of Section 34 of the Act as under:

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 8 of 25

46. Scope of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is now well crystallised

by a plethora of judgments of this Court. Section 34 is not in the

nature of an appellate provision. It provides for setting aside an

arbitral award that too only on very limited grounds i.e. as those

contained in sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 34. It is the

only remedy for setting aside an arbitral award. An arbitral

award is not liable to be interfered with only on the ground that

the award is illegal or is erroneous in law which would require

re-appraisal of the evidence adduced before the Arbitral

Tribunal. If two views are possible, there is no scope for the

court to re-appraise the evidence and to take the view other than

the one taken by the arbitrator. The view taken by the Arbitral

Tribunal is ordinarily to be accepted and allowed to prevail.

Thus, the scope of interference in arbitral matters is only

confined to the extent envisaged under Section 34 of the Act. The

court exercising powers under Section 34 has per force to limit

its jurisdiction within the four corners of Section 34. It cannot

travel beyond Section 34. Thus, proceedings under Section 34

are summary in nature and not like a full-fledged civil suit or a

civil appeal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is

contrary to the substantive provisions of law or Section 34 of the

1996 Act or the terms of the agreement.

28. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Bharat

Aluminium Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2857 has observed as

under:

42. The errors pointed out in the impugned judgement, i.e., lack

of evidence, percentage-based guess allowances, etc. do not,

singly or cumulatively, amount to patent illegality warranting

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 9 of 25

annulment. There were at least some evidence and logical

rationale for each award element. The arbitrator‟s approach was

certainly a possible view a reasonable man might take. The High

Court, unfortunately, re-appreciated the evidence and came to a

different view, which is impermissible. The High Court‟s

scrutinized the award from a stricter standard of proof than

arbitration law demands. Arbitrators are not bound by the strict

rules of evidence as per Section 19 of the A&C Act and may draw

on their knowledge and experience. It is settled that a court

should not interfere simply because the arbitrator‟s reasoning is

brief or because the arbitrator did not cite chapter and verse of

the contract as long as the path can be discerned by which the

arbitrator arrived at his conclusions. Here, the path is

discernible and not absurd.

29. In view of the above, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 34 of the Act, this Court does not sit as an appellate

authority and cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own

view merely because another interpretation is possible. Interference with

the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal is permissible only on the grounds

expressly provided under the said provision, and unless the impugned

Award is shown to suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or

contravention of the fundamental policy of law, no interference is

warranted.

30. As recorded in the order dated 28.07.2021, the petitioner has confined its

challenge to the impugned Award on the limited ground that no

opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to contest the amended

counter claims of the respondent, thereby alleging breach of the

principles of natural justice. The said order reads as under:

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 10 of 25

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 11 of 25

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 12 of 25

31. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned Award is

vitiated as it is based upon amendment applications dated 31.10.2018

and 13.02.2020, which, according to the petitioner, were never served,

never argued, and were allowed without any notice. It is further argued

that the petitioner became aware of the amendment application dated

31.10.2018 only when the respondent filed its reply in the present

proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.

32. Per contra, the respondent has categorically denied the allegation of

non-service and lack of opportunity. It is submitted that the amendment

application dated 31.10.2018, filed under Section 23 of the Act, was duly

served upon the petitioner during the arbitral proceedings and was within

the knowledge of the petitioner at all relevant stages.

33. At this stage it becomes pertinent to reproduce the applications dated

31.10.2018 and 13.02.2020.

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 13 of 25

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 14 of 25

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 15 of 25

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 16 of 25

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 17 of 25

34. The objection filed by the petitioner to the application dated 13.02.2020

reads as under:

“Ref: Respondents application dated 07 February „20 under

section 23(3) of the Act for amending amount of their claim

number 1

Honourable sir,

1. It is requested that the above application/amendment may not

please be allowed in view of the following:

2. a). Section 23 (3) of the Act reads as under:

“Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, either party may amend

or supplement his claim or supplement his claim or defence

during the course of the arbitral proceedings unless the arbitral

tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow the amendment or

supplement having regard to the delay in making it”

b). As brought out in your order dated 10 Feb „20, the hearing in

the proceedings was concluded on 24 January „19 and thereafter

the award was reserved and even a draft award was prepared

but it was not finalised and pronounced as there was no clarity

on payment of the fee. Therefore for all the practical purposes

the arbitral proceedings were over. Hence the amendment cannot

be allowed after more than one, year of the closure of the

proceedings,

c). Bombay High Court in the case of “Board of trustees of

Jawaharlal vs Three circles contractors” a judgement delivered

on 01 April 15, (Arbitration Petition no 648 of 2009) in para 89

of the report had remarked as under

“89. A perusal of the entire record clearly indicates that the

procedure in this matter followed by the learned arbitrator as

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 18 of 25

setout aforesaid is a procedure unknown to law. The entire

procedure followed by the learned arbitrator is in breach of

principles of natural justice and shows total non-application of

mind and patent illegality on the face of the award. Amendments

are allowed after closure of the arguments. Additional issues are

framed after declaring the proceedings as closed for declaring

the award. No hearing is rendered to any party on the additional

issues framed by the learned arbitrator after the proceedings

were closed for declaring the award. In my view by adopting

such procedure by the learned arbitrator in this manner, the

interest of both the parties and in particular of the petitioner was

seriously prejudiced. The entire award is thus in breach of

principles of natural justice and shocks the judicial conscience.”

2. In view of the aforesaid, it is requested that the application

and the amendment submitted by the Respondent may not pl be

admitted.”

35. A perusal of the arbitral record shows that on 24.01.2019 the Sole

Arbitrator took up the issue pertaining to the respondent’s counter-

claims and sought specific clarifications from the respondent. This

position is borne out from the record and is further corroborated by the

subsequent email dated 20.02.2019, whereby the Sole Arbitrator called

upon the respondent to furnish detailed clarifications. Notably, the said

email was also marked to the petitioner. The email dated 20.02.2019

reads as under:

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 19 of 25

36. The clarifications sought by the Sole Arbitrator were not mechanical in

nature but went to the root of Counter Claim No. 1, including (i) labour

escalation calculations, (ii) omission relating to mobilization advance

and interest, (iii) comparative bid statements, and (iv) details of

payments and deductions. This itself shows that the issue of revision of

counter claims was actively under consideration of the Sole Arbitrator

and could not have escaped the notice of the petitioner.

37. Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed its detailed response dated

26.02.2019, along with supporting documents, with a copy duly served

upon the petitioner. In the said response, the respondent expressly sought

revision of Counter Claim No. 1 from Rs. 5,63,16,339.70/- to Rs.

11,14,37,508.70/-, explaining the basis for such revision. The petitioner

has not been able to show that this reply was not served upon it.

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 20 of 25

38. Thereafter, the respondent again moved an application dated 13.02.2020

under Section 23(3) of the Act seeking to place the amended

counterclaims on record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner

filed its reply to the said application on 12.03.2020. Once the petitioner

has filed a reply to the application dated 13.02.2020, the contention that

the petitioner was unaware of the revision of the counterclaims cannot be

accepted, as the filing of the reply itself demonstrates that the petitioner

had full knowledge of the amended counterclaims.

39. A perusal of the two applications shows that Counter Claim No. 1 of the

respondent was corrected from 2.84 crores to 5.63 crores in the first

application dated 31.10.2018 and thereafter corrected from 5.63 crores to

approximately Rs. 11.14 crores in the second application dated

13.02.2020.

40. If the Petitioner had no knowledge of the application dated 31.10.2018,

the first question which the petitioner should have posed in its objections

to the respondent should have been the basis on which the figure of Rs.

5.63 crores came to be reflected in the application filed in the year 2020;

further, the fact that the petitioner objected to the second amendment

application only on the ground of delay clearly indicates that it was

aware of the respondent’s counter-claim to the extent of approximately

Rs. 5.63 crores. In view of the above the contention of the petitioner that

it had no knowledge of the amendment of the counter claim from 2.84

crores to 5.63 crores (as per the amendment application dated

31.10.2018) cannot be accepted.

41. The argument that the amendment application dated 31.10.2018 was

never argued is also not borne out from the record. The Procedural Order

reflects that show that the issue of counter claims and their clarificatory

submissions were discussed on 24.01.2019, clarifications were sought

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 21 of 25

thereafter, replies were filed, and the Sole Arbitrator had duly applied its

mind to the same before proceeding further.

42. The petitioner has further argued that the Sole Arbitrator had already

reserved the award and thereafter conducted a special sitting, during

which the amendment application dated 13.02.2020 was entertained.

Even assuming that the application was filed at a belated stage, the

record reflects that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond,

which the petitioner in fact availed. Merely because the decision on the

application did not find a separate procedural order does not ipso facto

establish violation of natural justice.

43. It is well settled that principles of natural justice require knowledge and

opportunity to respond, not a particular format of orders. In the present

case, the petitioner had notice of the revised counter claims, participated

in the proceedings, filed replies, and addressed submissions.

44. The Sole Arbitrator has also dealt with these aspects in paragraphs 11 to

16, especially para 14 which explicitly covers the amended counter

claims, of the award, explaining the manner in which the counter claims

were revised and considered. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

“11. The respondent too submitted an application on 25.10.2018

stating that following submission of the Final Bill, the amount

mentioned in the Final Bill (Rs 5,63,16,339.70) may be

substituted in place of Rs.2,84,63,305.18 which was the tentative

figure mentioned as claim no.1 in its Counter Claim.

12. The respondent also submitted another application seeking to

raise the amount relating to cost of arbitration from

Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed earlier, to Rs.30,00,000/-

13. The claimant's claims, as amended by its application dated

04.10.2018, are under several heads as under:

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 22 of 25

i) Claim no. 1: Rs. 8,18,72,870/- towards payment of work done,

material lying at site and escalation in respect of works executed

till date of cancellation.

[In the application dated 04.10.2018 the claim was also

computed in a different way arriving at the figure of Rs.

18,45,54,176.00 and sought to substitute it in place of

Rs.18,44,85,250 as claimed under claim no.1 in the SoC. But this

figure (Rs. 18,45,54,176.00) is arrived at by adopting a yardstick

deemed reasonable by the claimant but admittedly and manifestly

quite different from the one stipulated in the Contract

Agreement]

ii) Claim no.2: Rs. 4,36,05,321/- towards refund of the amount

collected by the respondent by encashing claimant‟s Bank

Guarantee.

iii) Claim no.3: Rs. 23,00,635/- towards payments of claimant‟s

plant and machineries and other assets at site at the time of

cancellation of the contract, idling of these plant and

machineries.

iv) Claim no. 4: Rs, 1,63,74,640/- as loss of profit due to

wrongful cancellation of the contract.

v) Claim no. 5: Rs. 29,55,053/- as interest for delay in payment

of escalation as well as of the changes.

vi) Claim no. 6: Rs 3,65,30,112/-as damages due to prolongation

of the contract period on account of breaches by the respondent.

vii) Claim no.7: Rs. 8,55,615/- -towards increase of prices of

material due to prolongation of contract beyond those

reimbursed through the escalation formulae.

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 23 of 25

viii) Claim no.8: Past, pendentalite and future interest @ 12%

per annum.

ix) Claim no. 9; Rs. 50,00,000/- as cost of arbitration and

litigation.

14. The respondent's counterclaims, as amended, areas under:

i) Claim no. 1: Rs. 5,63,16,339.70/- towards extra expenditure

incurred by Union of India for completing the balance work at

the risk & cost through Ramji Das Dhal Construction Put Ltd.

ii) Claim no. 2: Rs. 5,07,36,247.10/- towards compensation for

delay in completion of work.

iii) Claim no. 3: Rs: 5,37,18,000/- towards loss of revenue to

Govt. on account of not handing over the accommodation to the

service personnel.

iv) Claim no: 4: Rs. 3,33.580:12/- towards payment to consultant

(DEPMC)

v) Claim no. 5: Pendentalite and future interest @18% per

annum.

vi) Claim no. 6: Rs: 30,00,000/- for cost of reference.

At this point it is important to note that towards the very end of

the proceedings, on 23.02 2020 the respondent filed an

application under section 23 (3) of the Act once again seeking to

amend the amount claimed under claim no.1. It was pleaded that

the correct amount of claim no. 1 would be Rs. 11,14,37,508.70

and not Rs. 5,63,16,339.70 which was the result of an

arithmetical mistake in that in making the computation a certain

sum was deducted twice over. The relevant extract from the

application is as under:

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 24 of 25

In the working details of Counter Claim No 1 already on

record, it can be seen that an amount of Rs. 5,51,21,169.00

on account of recovery of Mobilization Advanced and

interest has been made twice. As a result, Counter Claim

amount of Respondent has been inadvertently and

incorrectly been reduced to Rs. 5,63,16,339.70 in lieu of

Rs.11,14,37,508.70. Revised detail duly amended as Rs

11,44,37,508.70 is enclosed herewith Appendix "A".

The application was very strongly opposed on behalf of the

claimant but the opposition was mainly on the ground of

extraordinary delay in seeking the amendment. It was not denied

or disputed that the amount earlier mentioned was due to a

simple-arithmetical mistake. The tribunal is of the view that the

respondent has indeed been negligent in making the application

but a simple and obvious mistake in calculation can be corrected

at any stage. The amendment application is accordingly allowed

and the amount of claim no. 1 is taken as Rs. 11,14.37.508.

15. It needs to be noted that in course of the proceeding the

respondent's representative freely gave to the claimant all the

documents asked for on its behalf from the records of the Project

and the” claimant had no difficulty in accessing the records on

which it might have relied in support of its case.

16. Since all the relevant records were not only produced before

the tribunal but also made available to the claimant's

representative both sides agreed that there was no need to

adduce any oral evidences and the matter could be heard and

finally disposed of on the basis of the documents filed by the

parties.”

O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021 Page 25 of 25

45. In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner was afforded

ample opportunity to contest the amendment of counter claims, that the

proceedings do not suffer from any procedural unfairness, and that the

principles of natural justice were duly complied with by the Sole

Arbitrator.

46. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the impugned

Award.

48. Thereby, the present petition is dismissed.

49. All pending applications are consequently disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J

JANUARY 05

th

, 2026/DE