Disposed¶9

Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 Others v. M/S Singh Brothers through Proprietor Jagram Singh

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2026ARPL/76/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order dated March 30, 2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Chief Justice's Court) in Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 No. 76 of 2026: Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 others (appellants; counsel Meenakshi Singh, A.C.S.C.) v. M/s Singh Brothers through Proprietor Jagram Singh (respondents; counsel Harish Chandra Mishra and Narendra Mohan). Coram: Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J. Sole direction: matter to be listed on 07.04.2026 as fresh at the request of counsel. No issues framed, no holdings, no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Matter listed on 07.04.2026 as fresh at the request of learned counsel for the parties; no merits adjudicated. ¶9

Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 Others vs M/S Singh… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 76 of 2026

¶3

Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 others

¶4

…..Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Singh Brothers through Proprietor Jagram Singh

¶7

…..Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajiv Singh, S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Narendra Mohan, Harish Chandra Mishra

¶9

Chief Justice's Court

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Rajiv Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶12

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 02.01.2026, whereby the Commercial Court, Jhansi has rejected their objections registered as Arbitration Misc. Case No. 5 of 2025 under Section 34 of the Act, and thereby confirmed the award dated 13.03.2025 passed by the sole Arbitrator.

¶13

¶14

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶15

BRIEF FACTS

¶16

The appellants being officials of the Irrigation Department, District Jhansi, invited tenders under Bundelkhand Project for construction of C.C. Lining in Islampur Branch from 16.000 Km to 21.300 Km at Hamirpur District for the work having sanctioned amount of Rs. 372.64 lakh. Tender of the respondent, being the lowest, was accepted and under a contract executed between the parties on 15.07.2013, work was assigned to the respondent.

¶17

As per the contract, the work was scheduled to commence from 16.07.2013 and was to be completed till 15.07.2014. During the course of execution of work, the Department issued instructions to carry out extra work and the time for completion of work was extended till 17.01.2015. Admittedly, the respondent completed the work on 14.01.2015 and submitted the final bill on the same date. The Department made payment of a sum of Rs. 20,87,774/- to the respondent on 30.03.2015 against the final bill dated 14.01.2015 and the security deposit of Rs. 39 lakh was returned to the respondent after 8 months on 10.12.2015.

¶18

The respondent made requests to the Department for payment of certain sums which, according to the respondent, had remained unpaid and when no heed was paid to the same, the respondent invoked arbitration clause under the contract and sent a notice dated 12.02.2018 to the Department for appointment of Arbitrator. Ultimately, the Arbitrator was appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act pursuant to order dated 25.04.2022 passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 114 of 2021.

¶19

ARBITRAL AWARD

¶20

Before the sole Arbitrator, parties pressed and contested their rival claims and, ultimately, the Arbitrator, after framing 11 issues and recording findings thereon, passed an award dated 13.03.2025, with following operative portion:-

¶21

¶22

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶23

A) The Claimant is entitled to payment of a sum of Rs. 11,89,414.50 for extra work rate difference and reduced extra work from the opposite parties;

¶24

B) The Claimant is entitled to payment of sum of Rs. 6,76,657.00 for 80-CC work;

¶25

C) The Claimant is entitled to be paid interest over and above, the said sums of money (Rs. 11,89,414.50/- + 6,76,657/- = 18,66,071.50/-) @ 12% p.a from 31.03.2015 till today i.e date of award.

¶26

D) The Claimant is entitled to interest @ 12% on delayed refund of earnest money;

¶27

E) The Claimant shall also entitled for interest @ 18% on these aforesaid amounts as provided under section 31(7) (b) of the Act, w.e.f. today till the date of actual payment.

¶28

F) The Claimant is entitled to be refunded extra fine @ Rs. 2.00 per bag of empty cement bags with interest @ 18% p.a

¶29

G) The Claimant is also entitled to cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- as arbitration proceedings including the price of stamp duty for the award.”

¶30

OBJECTIONS U/S 34

¶31

The appellants filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the Commercial Court raising following grounds:-

¶32

"4.1. that the Ld. Arbitrator has erred in law as well fact while awarding @211/- per cubic meter for the extra work of 27,377 cubic meter, but it should be @ Rs. 199/- as per Schedule of Rate of District, Chitrakoot Mandal.

¶33

4.2. that no work between 16.00 Km to 16.555 Km was ever carried out by the Claimant till the fifth and final measurement dated 14.01.2015 and as the project was to be carried out between 16.00 Km to 21.300 Km under Bundelkhand package and initially tender was invited for only 11870 cubic meter of work, but total work was measured as 39259.48 cubic meter, which exceeds the decided work i.e 39259.48-11,870 = 27389.48 cubic meter. Hence, the extra work was of 27,389.48 cubic meter was carried out, but the Ld. Arbitrator has wrongly allowed award for 80 CC of the work, which is even against the joint measurement of both the parties.

¶34

4.3. The Ld. Arbitrator has wrongly allowed the refund @ Rs. 2 per empty cement bags with interest @ 18% p.a.

¶35

4.4. The Ld Arbitrator has wrongly decided that the claimant is, entitled to interest @ 12% on delayed refund of earnest money.

¶36

4.5 that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of record.

¶37

4.6. that the Ld. Arbitrator did not consider and overlooked the contents of pleadings, documents and evidence on record and is bad in law.

¶38

¶39

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶40

4.7. that the award is bad in law and is in conflict with public policy of India and is illegal and has been passed arbitrary against the facts and evidence on record.”

¶41

Before the Commercial Court, the appellants confined their objections only qua two issues which have been noted in the order impugned. For the sake of convenience, para-8 of the order referring to the limited issues, is reproduced as under:-

¶42

"8. During argument, the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant/Department has confined himself only on two issues i.e. Awarding @ Rs. 211/- per cubic meter for the extra work of 27,389.48 cubic meter instead of @ Rs. 199 per cubic meter & awarding Rs. 6,76,657/-and interest thereon for 80 cubic meter work. Thus, this Court has framed the following issues to be decided, which are as under:-

¶43

(a). Whether the Ld. Arbitrator has committed patent illegality in awarding @ Rs. 211/- per cubic meter instead of @ Rs. 199 per cubic meter for the extra work of 27,389.48 cubic meter in the impugned award ?

¶44

(b). Whether the Ld. Arbitrator has committed patent illegality in awarding Rs. 6,76,657/- and interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from 31.03.2015 till the date of award and further interest @ 18% from the date of award till actual payment ? ”

¶45

ORDER IMPUGNED

¶46

The Commercial Court, having found no illegality in the award, dismissed the objections by the order impugned dated 02.01.2026.

¶47

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants has made submissions that the Commercial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded sums @ Rs. 211/- per cubic meter for the extra work of 27,389.48 cubic meter instead of @ Rs. 199/- per MQ, as the soil brought by the respondent and filled in canal for extra work was available within the reach of 595 meters and, therefore, the rate of Rs. 199/- per MQ should have been applied as per the ‘Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh Schedule Rate of Chitrakoot Mandal, Banda’ and, though argued before the Commercial Court, the submissions made have not been properly considered.

¶49

¶50

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶51

It is further submitted that document reducing rate from Rs. 211/per cubic meter to Rs. 199/- per MQ was already on record as Office Memorandum dated 03.01.2015, which has been ignored, both by the learned Arbitrator and the Commercial Court. Further submissions have been made that the work executed was duly recorded in the Measurement Book prepared by the appellants and though there is no dispute regarding extra work done by the respondent, computations made are incorrect and, therefore, the objections under Section 34 of the Act should have been allowed and the award should have been set aside.

¶52

It is further submitted that in para 11.11 of the order impugned, once the Commercial Court has observed that that there is an apparent error on the part of the learned Arbitrator while reading joint inspection report, the same was sufficient for setting aside the award and by not doing so, a patent illegality has been committed by the Commercial Court.

¶53

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

¶54

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has made submissions that correct findings based upon the terms of contract and other material available on record have been recorded, both by the Arbitrator as well as Commercial Court, particularly as regards the rate of Rs. 211/- per cubic meter and the appellants could not establish their stand qua reduction of rate from Rs. 211/- per cubic meter to Rs. 199/per MQ and, therefore, there is no perversity, either in the award or in the order passed by the Commercial Court.

¶55

It is further submitted that four bills were rightly issued by the appellants, however, in the fifth and final bill, incorrect indications were made by wrongly applying rate of Rs. 199/- per MQ and, therefore, dispute was raised and has been appropriately dealt with by the Arbitrator and once there was no error in the award, the Commercial Court has rightly rejected the objections under Section 34 of the Act.

¶56

It is further submitted that the solitary document in the nature of Office Memorandum dated 03.01.2015 relied on by the appellants as a

¶57

¶58

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶59

document reducing rate from Rs. 211/- per cubic meter to Rs. 199/- per MQ, was neither addressed to the respondent nor otherwise communicated to it and, therefore, unilateral decision, if any, to reduce the rate, cannot be accepted. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶60

DISCUSSION

¶61

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶62

Admittedly, the appellants had confined their objections before the Commercial Court to the extent already indicated hereinbefore. Therefore, the Court has to examine the rival contentions qua applicability of rate, that is to say as to whether, for the extra work done by the respondent, award should have been made by applying rate of Rs. 211/- per cubic meter or Rs. 199/- per MQ. Other issue relating to award of interest, being consequential and, even otherwise, no arguments having been advanced qua the same, the Court would not go into the said aspect of the matter.

¶63

In order to examine the position of 'rate' on which payments were required to be made to the respondent-contractor, reference to Clause 16 of the contract may be made. The same reads as under:-

¶64

"10.1. CLAUSE 16 . Alteration in specification and design.

¶65

'Do not invalidate contract. The Engineer-in-charge shall have power to make such alterations in or additions to the original specification, drawing designs and instructions as may appear to him to be necessary or advisable during the progress of the work, and the contractor shall be bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to his in writing signed by the Engineer-in-charge and such alteration shall not invalidate the contract, and any additional work which the contractor may be so directed to do shall be carried out by the contractor on the same conditions in all respect on which he agreed to do the main work, and at the same rates as are specified in the tender for the main work…”

¶66

Admittedly, the rate specified in the tender for the main work was Rs. 211/- per cubic meter and payments, time and again, were made to the respondent at the same rate, however, in the final bill, computations for extra work were made at the rate of Rs. 199/- per MQ and the ground

¶67

¶68

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶69

taken by the appellants qua the same is that the lead area for the extra work was 595 meter and not 1 Km, therefore, the appellants had rightly reduced the rate to Rs. 199/- per MQ.

¶70

On a pointed query made by the Court to the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants as to by what communication and in what manner such reduction was made from Rs. 211/- per cubic meter to Rs. 199/- per MQ, the learned Standing Counsel, except making reference of an Office Memorandum dated 03.01.2015, could not refer to any other document. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the entire Office Memorandum dated 03.01.2015, which reads as under:-

¶71

पत्रांक-8534 (B ) / / मु०अ०बे०/ई-7 2015

¶72

अधीक्षण अभि�र्यान्ता, चतुर्थ� मण्डल, सिं�चाई कार्या� झां�ी ने अपने पत्रांक-233/चतुर्थ� 2(ला०), विदनांक 26.12.2014 के द्वारा इस्लामपुर शाख के विक०मी० 16.555 �े विक०मी० 21.300 के �ी०�ी० लाइनिंनग के कार्या� का पुनरीक्षिक्षत प्राक्कलन, लागत रू0 389.86 लाख को अपनी �ंस्तुक्षित इ� कार्य ा �लर्या को प्रेविJत विकर्य ा है। जाँचोपरान्त इ� प्राक्कलन की लागत रु० 389.86 लाख आर्याी

¶73

अतः अधीक्षण अभि�र्यान्ता, की �ंस्तुक्षित के आधार पर इस्लामपुर शाख के विक०मी० 16.555 �े 21.300 के मध्र्या �ी०�ी० लाइनिंनग के कार्या� का पनुरीक्षिक्षत प्राक्कलन लागत रू० 389.88 लाख (तीन �ौ नवा�ी लाख, भिTर्य ा �ी हजार मात्र) को लेखाशीJ�क-40-4575-02800-04-79-24, खण्ड पैकेज के अन्तग�त एतद्द्वारा स्वीकृत विकर्य ा जाता है।

¶74

र्याह प्राक्कलन कार्य ा �लर्या रजिजस्टर क्रमांक- 15 परें अंविकत है।

¶75

प्रक्षितलिलविप विनम्नलिललिखत को �ूचनार्थ� एवं आवश्र्याक कार्या�वाही हेतु प्रेविJत है। मुख्र्या अभि�र्यान्ता (आर्या-व्र्यार्याक), सिं�चाई विव�ाग, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ। मुख्र्या अभि�र्यान्ता (पक्षिbम) सिं�चाई विव�ाग, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

¶76

वरिरष्ठ स्टाफ, अक्षिधकारी (बजट), सिं�चाई विव�ाग, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

¶77

¶78

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶79

अधीक्षण अभि�र्यान्ता, चतुर्थ� मण्डल, सिं�चाई कार्या�, झां�ी को उनके उपरोक्त �ंदर्भि�त पत्र के क्रम में स्वीकृत प्राक्कलन की प्रक्षित �विहत इ� विनदhश के �ार्थ प्रेविJत है विक प्राक्कलन में ली गई दरों का पूण� उत्तरदाक्षिर्यात्व आपका होगा। (�ंलग्नक �विहत) महालेखाकार, विद्वतीर्या, उ०प्र०, इलाहाबाद।

¶80

वरिरष्ठ स्टॉफ अक्षिधकारी (बेतवा) कृते मुख्र्या अभि�र्यान्ता (बेतवा)”

¶81

A bare perusal of the Office Memorandum shows that the same does not contain any indication of rate, either Rs. 211/- or Rs. 199/-. The same only refers to some "पुनरीक्षिक्षत प्राक्कलन" (revised estimate) and we find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, though inconsequential, even the said Office Memorandum was neither addressed nor communicated to the respondent nor was any opportunity to have its say qua the same was provided to the respondent.

¶82

The award passed by the Arbitrator indicates that the issue of rate had been agitated before him and, after noticing the contentions of rival parties, following observations were made and findings recorded by the Arbitrator:-

¶83

"The claimant has contended that in the course of execution of the contract, the opposite parties gave instruction to carry out 31468.82 MQ extra earth work other than those mentioned in Annexure No. 2 of the contract. The claimant carried out the extra work awarded to the satisfaction of the opposite parties. After completion of the entire work including extra work the claimant submitted final bill dated 14.01.2015 but full payment of the same was denied/ declined by the opposite parties. The claimant has further contended that so far as contractual work is concerned the same was paid @ Rs 211 per MQ for 11870.00 MQ and the payment made and received was Rs 2504570/-However, out of the said 31468.82 MQ extra earth work, the payment was made for only 27389.48 MQ @ Rs 199.00 per MQ being sum of Rs 5450506.52/- instead of at @ Rs. 211 per MQ and no payment was made for extra earth work of 4079.34 MQ. The claimant has further contended that by Letter dated 05.06.2014 the Claimant had informed the department that the extra work/quantity which is to be carried out by the Claimant will be on the same rate i.e. Rs.211 per MQ which was accepted by the Opposite Party. The department had never denied the fact that the extra work/extra quantity had never given to the Claimant. Rather, they have accepted it that it was given to the claimant, which is apparent from the various letters as well as from the bill and also from the running payment made to the Claimant.

¶84

¶85

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶86

The claimant has also contended that the running bill which was paid-to the claimant admits the lead of 1 Km, therefore, the argument raised by the respondent that the soil was to be brought from a distance of 595 meters is perfectly unjustified and wrong as the running bill is the best part of the agreement as the Junior Engineer on the spot make a physical verification and Measurement and after that the amount of work and rate is Calculated, on that the Senior Officer used to check and pay, since all the running bill was made and accepted on the spot by the senior officer accepting lead of 1 Km at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ. First running bill was prepared on 30.03.2014 for 17258 MQ at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.34,34,342/-. Second running bill was prepared on 20.07.2014 for 27069.555 MQ at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.57,11,676.11. Third running bill was prepared on 10.11.2014 for 40432.63 MQ lead 1 Km at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.57.11,676.11 but this bill was wrong it ought to have been Rs:85,31,284.93. Fourth running bill was prepared on 21.12.2014 for 35057.52 MQ, lead 1 Km at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.73,97,136.72 was paid after verification and measurement at the spot, but the reason best known to the department the lead was calculated from 595 meters by the department, which is wrong.

¶87

The Opposite Party No. 3 has contended that the claimant has raised a false claim of doing 31468.82 MQ of extra earth work which is evident from the fact that in support thereof, the claimant has neither annexed any evidence nor has brought any document on record. The Opposite Party has further contended that while allotting the work of 11870.00 MQ as per agreement the rate of Rs. 211 per MQ was fixed because of the reason as provided in the contract that the material which was to be brought by excavating the earth for filling of 16 Km to 21.300 Km was to be brought from a distance of upto 1000 meter (1km) but the extra work of 27389.48 MQ which was later on done by the claimant, in that reach, the soil, which was brought by the claimant and filled in canal, was available within reach of 595 meters thus, taking the aforesaid fact In consideration the department concerned had calculated as per Irrigation Department Uttar Pradesh Schedule of Rate for Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda. The rate of extra work within lead of 595 meters was as per schedule fixed at the rate of Rs. 199 per MQ and same was also agreed by the claimant which is evident from the fact that the claimant received the payment of extra work done at the rate of Rs. 199 per MQ.

¶88

The-Opposite Party No: 3 has further contended that the extra work, which the contractor is claiming to have done during the completion of work, was necessary work to be done for completion of the work allotted and as per the Clause-16 of condition of the contract, the Engineer-In-Charge have power to make alteration in specification of work allotted and any additional work which the contractor may be so directed to do, shall be carried out by the contractor on the same condition. Since the extra work of lead and lift of soil was within 595 meters and not above 595-1000 meters therefore, as per rate schedule, prevalent at that time, was of Rs. 199 per MQ and accordingly the payment was made to the claimant.

¶89

The Arbitral Tribunal has carefully perused the First running bill dated 30.03.2014 for 17258 MQ at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.34,34,342/- (Annexure No. 2-A at page

¶90

¶91

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶92

No. 12 of the Supplementary Affidavit of the Claimant), Second running bill dated 20.07.2014 for 27069.555 MQ at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs:57,11,676.11( Annexure No. SA1 at page No. 4-7 of the Supplementary Affidavit of the Claimant), Third running bill dated 10.11.2014 for 40432.63 MQ lead 1 Km at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.57.11,676.11 which as per the Claimant ought to have been Rs.85,31,284.93( Annexure No. SA2 at page No. 8-11 of the Supplementary Affidavit of the Claimant) & Fourth running bill was prepared on 21.12.2014 for 35057.52 MQ, lead 1 Km at the rate of Rs.211 per MQ amounting to Rs.73,97,136.72 (Annexure No. SA3 at page No. 12-14 of the Supplementary Affidavit of the Claimant)

¶93

Therefore, the claimant is entitled to be paid meter instead of @ Rs. 199.00 per cubic meter as contended by the opposite parties. The contention of the opposite parties that payment for extra work was to be done as per Irrigation Department Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Rate for Chitrakoot Mandal Banda is not correct because the extra work is in continuation of the main contract which was duly ordered to be carried out as per change in specification as agreed in Cl. 22 of the contract. Further the Arbitral Tribunal finds that the claimant is also entitled to payment for 4079.34 cubic meter extra work which was deducted/reduced by the opposite party. Thus this Issue is decided affirmatively in favour of the claimant and against the opposite parties. The claimant is entitled to an award for a sum of Rs. 11,89,414.50 being sum of difference of rate and payment for reduced extra work. ”

¶94

The abovenoted findings are based upon meticulous examination of record and, when agitated before the Commercial Court vide objections under Section 34 of the Act, the Commercial Court has recorded specific finding that nothing has been brought on record to establish that the lead area for extra work was 595 meters and, consequently, the findings recorded by the Arbitrator on the plea raised were found to be justified.

¶95

As regards the plea that the Commercial Court, even after having recorded that the learned Arbitrator has committed an apparent error while reading the joint inspection report, wrongly did not interfere with the award, we find that the said report was in relation to length of work and a difference of 80 meter work was noticed by the Arbitrator. Even if there was some error on the part of the Arbitrator in reading the joint inspection report, once there is no dispute about the length of work indicated in the final bill and the dispute remains confined only and only

¶96

¶97

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶98

to the applicable rate, the error, if any, becomes otiose and would not affect either the award or the order passed by the Commercial Court.

¶99

The scope of exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act has been consistently dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in P.P. Shah, Shares and Stock Broker (P) Ltd Vs. M/s. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. and others: (2012) 1 SCC 594, it has been held that the Court dealing with such objections does not sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral Tribunal by re-assessing or re-appreciating the evidence and the award can be challenged only on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 (2) of the Act.

¶100

Further, qua the scope of exercise of powers by this Court while hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, reference can be made to Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.: (2022) 1 SCC 131 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified as to what can be termed as 'patent illegality' and has laid down as under:-

¶101

" 25. Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegality’. Likewise, erroneous application of law cannot be categorized as patent illegality. In addition, contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression ‘patent illegality’. What is prohibited is for courts to re-appreciate evidence to conclude that the award suffers from patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, as courts do not sit in appeal against the arbitral award. ……....”

¶102

Similarly, in MMTC Ltd. Vs. M/s Vedanta Ltd.: (2019) 4 SCC 163 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 does not exceed the scope of the provision.

¶103

¶104

ARPL No. - 76 of 2026

¶105

CONCLUSION

¶106

In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellants have miserably failed to establish their plea qua alleged wrongful application of rate and once, not only the Arbitrator but also the Commercial Court has elaborately dealt with the said plea with reference to the material available on record and corresponding to the terms of the contract, we do not find any patent illegality either in the award or in the order passed by the Commercial Court so as to exercise our appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act for setting aside either the award or the order impugned.

¶107

Consequently, the appeal has no substance; the same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶108

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶109

April 07, 2026 AKShukla/-

¶110

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 Others v. M/S Singh Brothers through Proprietor Jagram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 Others v. M/S Singh Brothers through Proprietor Jagram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Beenapara Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Ors.

Heera Lal and 3 Others Vs Cantonment Board Jhansi Thru. Chief Exe. Officer Jhansi

Suresh Bilhatiya and Anr. Vs the Estate Officer Thru. Cantt. Board Jhansi and 2 Others

Smt Champa Devi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Union of India and 5 Others Vs Samson Roshan

Balmani Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others