The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Degloor vs M. D. Engineers… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Degloor vs M. D. Engineers… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the 36-day delay in filing the Arbitration Appeal (Civil Application No. 3906 of 2026 allowed and disposed of); Arbitration Appeal (Stamp) No. 9500 of 2026 dismissed with no interference in the arbitral award; execution of the award stayed/abeyance for ten weeks on the Municipal Council's undertaking to implement it within that period (Civil Application No. 3908 of 2026 disposed of).

Issue for consideration

Whether the contract underlying the arbitral award was established/proved, given the appellant's contention that there was a dispute regarding the very existence of the contract. +3 more

Court's answer

The Arbitral Tribunal recorded a categorical finding as to the existence of the contract; the work was carried out and part payments were made; therefore the contention that the contract is not proved cannot be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

Civil Application No. 3906 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the Arbitration Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

Key takeaways

There is no prima facie patent illegality in the award passed by the Arbitrator; consequently no case is made out for interference with the arbitral award.ratio¶15
Enhancement of the interest rate cannot be granted by the District Court in proceedings under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; hence no interference is made out on that count and the Arbitration Appeal (Stamp) No. 9500 of 2026 stands dismissed.ratio¶18
In view of the Municipal Council's undertaking to implement the arbitral award within ten weeks, the award shall not be executed for ten weeks and any execution proceedings shall remain in abeyance for that period; Civil Application No. 3908 of 2026 stands disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad (Arun R. Pedneker, J., 23 April 2026): Condones 36-day delay in filing Arbitration Appeal (Stamp) No. 9500/2026 by The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Degloor concerning an arbitral award. Rejects the appellant's contention that the contract's very existence was not established, noting the Arbitral Tribunal's categorical existence-finding, the executed work and part payments made. Finds no prima facie patent illegality in the award and makes no interference. Holds that enhancement of the claimant's (D. M. Engineers') interest of 6% per annum cannot be granted by the District Court in proceedings under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and dismisses the appeal. On the Municipal Council's undertaking, execution of the award is held in abeyance for ten weeks (Civil Applications Nos. 3906 and 3908 of 2026 disposed of).

2026:BHC-AUG:18234

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3906 OF 2026 IN ARBAST/9500/2026

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Degloor

VERSUS

D. M. Engineers Through Proprietor Mahendra Laxmanrao Deshpande

... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sunil Vasantrao Kurundkar Advocate for Respondents : Mr. R. S. Sarvadnya

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3908 OF 2026 IN ARBAST/9500/2026

WITH ARBAST/9500/2026

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : April 23, 2026

PER COURT :

In Civil Application No. 3906 of 2026 , filed for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the Arbitration Appeal, for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.

The learned Counsel for the appellant / Municipal Council has taken me through the findings recorded in the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and submitted that there was a dispute regarding the very existence of the contract and the contract itself was not established.

However, the Arbitral Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding as to the existence of the contract. It is also noted that the work was carried out and part payments were made. In such circumstances, the contention that the contract is not proved cannot be accepted.

There is no prima facie patent illegality in the award passed by the Arbitrator. Considering the same, no case is made out for interference with the arbitral award.

Page 1 of 2

955 CA 3906-2026

Insofar as Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 filed by the claimant is concerned, the same pertains to the grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum, and the claimant seeks enhancement thereof. Such enhancement cannot be granted by the District Court in proceedings under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, no case is made out for interference on this count as well. Accordingly, the Arbitration Appeal (Stamp) No.9500 of 2026 stands dismissed.

In Civil Application No. 3908 of 2026 , the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, on instructions, submits that the arbitral award shall be implemented within a period of ten weeks.

In view of the said statement, the arbitral award shall not be executed for a period of ten weeks from today. The execution proceedings, if any, shall remain in abeyance for the said period. The Civil Application No.3908 of 2026 stands disposed of.

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

vj gawade/-.

Page 2 of 2