Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs Ferro Concrete Const (India) Pvt. Ltd.

BHAGIRATHPURA, INDORE (MP).-452003 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR AND RESOLVED ATTORNEY MR ANUPAM BIDASARIA S/O. DR. MAHAVIR BIDASARIA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. 8A, SHRINAGAR ANNEX, INDORE (MP).-452018

¶23

MR.JUSTICE L.SREENIVASA REDDY, FORMER JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, PRESIDING ARBITRATOR, MANOHARA NILAYA NO.21/A, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶24

MR. S. RAMADAS, FORMER CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (KARNATAKA) BENGALURU CO-ARBITRATOR, NO.1139, 11TH MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560104.

¶25

MR. M.L. MADAIAH FORMER CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (KARNATAKA) BENGALURU CO-ARBITRATOR, 1598/A, 27TH CROSS, 29TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶28

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2025, PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:17087-DB COMAP No. 313 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

AND SESSIONS JUDE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-83), IN COMAP NO.65/2024 AT ANNEXURE A, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 02.12.2023 R/W CORRIGENDUM. CLARIFICATION DATED 11.01.2024 ONLY IN SO FAR AS CLAIM No.1, CLAIM No.2, CLAIM No.4, CLAIM NO.5, CLAIM NO.8, CLAIM, NO.11, CLAIM NO.12, AND CLAIM NO.13, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 BY AWARDING A SUM OF AWARDING A SUM OF RS.7,22,79,918/- ALONGWTH INTEREST AT ANNEXURE B AND C.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶35

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶38

Issue notice.

¶39

Sri Bhargava D. Bhat, learned counsel accepts notice for

¶40

respondent No.1.

¶41

We do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4. The same is dispensed with.

¶42

The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [ A&C Act ] and Section 13(1)(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [ CC Act ]

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17087-DB COMAP No. 313 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

impugning the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-83) [ Commercial Court ] in Com.A.P.No.65/2024. The appellants had filed the said petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, impugning an arbitral award dated 02.12.2023, read with the corrigendum/clarification dated 11.01.2024 [ impugned order ]. The appellant's challenge to the impugned award was confined to certain claims [Claim No.1, Claim No.2, Claim No.4, Claim No.5, Claim No.8, Claim No.11 and Claim No.12 and Claim No.13] which were awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶46

The learned Commercial Court concluded that the limited challenge to the arbitral award was impermissible. According to the learned Commercial Court, the appellants could either challenge the impugned award in entirety or accept the same in entirety; it had no option to challenge the award rendered in respect of certain claims.

¶47

The aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Commercial Court is ex facie erroneous.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17087-DB COMAP No. 313 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The court cannot modify an arbitral award, except in circumstances as set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited¹ . However, there is no impediment for the Court to partially set aside an arbitral award if the portion that is challenged is distinct and severable. In the present case, there is no finding that the award in respect to claims that were challenged was not severable from the decision in respect of the other claims. There is no finding that all claims were inextricably linked, and sustaining the challenge to the impugned award in respect of certain claims would also affect the decision in respect of other claims.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also fairly does not contest the said proposition and requests that the matter be remanded to the learned Commercial Court for a decision afresh.

¶52