The appeal against the setting aside of an arbitral award was disposed of by directing that if the respondent reagitates the claim, the Arbitral Tribunal must decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~56.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 71/2022 and C.M. No. 14371/2022
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA..... Appellant
Through: Mr Arun Kumar Varma, Senior Advocate with Mr Yamandeep Kumar and Ms Sabah Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocates.
versus
KMC CONSTRUCTION LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr Hitendra R. Nath and Ms Vidushi Garg, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:02.03.2024 13:21:58
Page 1 of 3
FAO(OS) (COMM) 71/2022
recorded in the order dated 19.02.2024. For convenience, the order dated 19.02.2024 is extracted hereafter:
“ According to Mr Arun Kr. Varma, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant, there are two aspects which arise for consideration.
1.1. First, as to whether or not the respondent should be paid interest in terms of Clause 60.8 of the Conditions of Particular Applications [in short, “COPA”].
1.2. Second, whether the respondent should be paid interest for the period when settlement talks were going on between the parties.
2. Learned Single Judge via impugned judgment dated 23.12.2021 has ruled against the appellant on both counts. According to the learned Single Judge, the Arbitral Tribunal has erred in granting simple interest at the rate of 16% per annum, as against the rate prescribed in Clause 60.8 of the COPA.
3. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has also disagreed with the Arbitral Tribunal insofar as it has ruled that interest should not run for the period when settlement talks were continuing.
3.1 This period spans between 24.10.2013 to 23.06.2015.
4. Counsel for the respondents says that he will return with instructions.
5. List the matter on 21.02.2024. ”
4.1 It is Ms Suri’s contention that the respondent would like to reagitate the issue concerning Claim No. 22.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:02.03.2024 13:21:58
Page 2 of 3
FAO(OS) (COMM) 71/2022
the observations made in the impugned judgment should not burden the Arbitral Tribunal, if the cause is taken up once again by the respondent.
RAJIV SHAKDHER (JUDGE)
AMIT BANSAL (JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 21, 2024 kd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:02.03.2024 13:21:58
Page 3 of 3
FAO(OS) (COMM) 71/2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the arbitrator will be free to decide the lis uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned judgment if the issue is reagitated?
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
KMC CONSTRUCTION LTD
RAJIV SHAKDHER
AMIT BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
