Steel Authority Of India Limited vs. M/S Primetals Technologies India Pvt Limited

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 12.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.02.2026


+ O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 & I.A. 21931/2023
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Adv
with Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Mr.
Anurag Tiwari and Mr. Sahib
Patel, Advs.
versus

M/S PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.
LIMITED .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Rajesh Markanda, Mr.
Keshri Kumar & Mr. Saurav
Markanda, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
J U D G M E N T

1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) challenging the arbitral
award dated 02.05.2023, modified vide order dated 07.07.2023.
FACTS
2. The facts in brief emerging from the record are that the parties
to the lis executed a contract on 01.06.2007 whereby the respondent
was to replace „Existing MG Sets for Roughing and Finishing Stand
Drives Motors of Plate Mill by Digital Thyristor Converters‟ at Bhilai
Steel Plant (hereinafter „BSP‟). The work was to be completed by the
respondent within twenty-one months and was for a price of
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 1 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



Rs.44,93,20,127/-. The contract was executed, the commissioning
certificate and the final acceptance certificate were issued on
03.08.2010 and 24.05.2013 respectively. The final invoices dated
28.05.2018 were submitted by the respondent and the payment was
released on 10.07.2018 after deducting liquidated damages (in short
„LD‟) and Rs.1,40,38,523/- for shortfall in minimum guaranteed
CENVAT credit (in short „MGCC‟). On failure of conciliation
attempts, the arbitration proceedings as per clause 6 of the General
Contract Conditions (in short „GCC‟) were invoked on 28.12.2021.
3. The arbitrator framed seven issues:
“1. Whether the claims of the Claimant are barred
by Limitation?
2. Whether the claims are barred by principles of
estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?
3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the
declaration from this Tribunal that the amount
Rs.1,40,38,523/- deducted by the Respondent on
account of shortfall of guaranteed CENVAT is bad
in law?
4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to
reimbursement of Rs.1,40,38,523/- deducted by
the Respondent on account of shortfall of
guaranteed CENVAT.
5. Whether the Respondent has withheld any
amount on account of Entry Tax over and above
the withheld amounts towards shortfall in
CENVAT Credit and levy of Liquidated damages?
If yes, what amount?
6. Whether the Claimant is entitled to
reimbursement of Rs.31,02,155/- on account
deduction made against Entry Tax?
7. Whether the Claimant is entitled to interest and
if so and, if so, at what rate?
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 2 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



8. Relief and costs;”

3.1 Issues 1, 2, 4 and 7 were decided in favour of the
respondent/claimant. The claim was held to be within limitation and
there was no estoppel, waiver or acquiescence by the respondent. The
deduction of Rs.1,40,38,523/- on account of shortfall in MGCC was
faulted. Interest pendente lite @12% and post-award interest @9%
were awarded. The respondent was held entitled to costs of
Rs.18,20,644/-. Hence, the present petition.
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that a notice
dated 17.05.2014 was issued for imposing LD and deducting the
shortfall in MGCC and therefore, the initiation of arbitration on
28.12.2021 is time-barred.
4.1 It is contended that in response to the notice dated 17.05.2014
no objection was raised against the deduction on account of shortfall
in MGCC, the right to contest the deduction was waived and the
respondent was estopped from invoking arbitration. Further that at the
time of final discharge the respondent undertook not to raise any claim
and an affidavit dated 09.05.2015 to a similar effect was executed.
4.2 It is canvassed that the arbitrator wrongly held that vide letter
dated 21.05.2018 directions were issued by the petitioner for
submission of the final invoices.
4.3 The argument is that the arbitrator has rewritten the terms of the
contract, the respondent violated Article 2.1 of the contract by not
passing the MGCC of Rs.4,65,71,592/- and the arbitrator erred in
disallowing the deduction made for shortfall in MGCC.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 3 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



4.4 It is argued that there was no evidence that the shortfall in
MGCC was on account of variation in the rate of taxes and the
respondent in compliance with clause 14.6.2 failed to submit the
required documents. It is stated that clause 14.6.3 of the contract deals
only with variation in taxes of finished goods and not raw materials,
parts, components, intermediate component, assemblies, sub-
assemblies, etc. The challenge to the award is on the ground that it is
violative of Section 31(3) of the Act and is non-speaking.
4.5 The contention is that cost of litigation awarded is exorbitant.
SUBMISSIOIN OF THE RESPONDENT
5. Per contra the issue of LD was not pressed. The cause of action
for invoking arbitration arose in the second week of July 2018 when
the shortfall in MGCC was deducted and the claim made was within
limitation. It is argued that in the notice dated 17.05.2014 deduction
for shortfall in MGCC was neither proposed nor quantified therefore,
no objection against deduction was raised. The contention that the
respondent consented to the deduction is refuted.
5.1 The submission is that in case of non-production of documents,
the contract provided that there would be no reimbursement but there
is no clause for deducting the shortfall in MGCC. It is submitted that
the shortfall in MGCC was to be deducted from the gross contract
price and not from the net contract price and reliance is placed upon
the decision of the Delhi High Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.
(SAIL) v. Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly
known as Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 2496 against which the intra court appeal and the SLP
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 4 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



were dismissed. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Steel
Authority of India Limited v. SMS India Private Limited 2025
SCC OnLine Cal 8069 is relied upon to buttress the contention that
no deduction for shortfall in MGCC could be made in the absence of a
clause specifying such deduction.
ANALYSIS ON ISSUE OF LIMITATION AND WAIVER
6. The undisputed factual findings recorded by the arbitrator are
that the contract was executed on 01.06.2007; the commissioning
certificate was dated 03.08.2010; the performance guarantee
certificate and the final acceptance certificate were dated 23.01.2012
and 24.05.2013 respectively; after getting NOC from the concerned
departments including the labour department the respondent submitted
final invoices dated 28.05.2018 and on 10.07.2018 the petitioner
imposed LD and deducted Rs.1,40,38,523/- for shortfall in MGCC.
7. The mandatory reconciliation prior to arbitration commenced
on 26.05.2021 but failed and the arbitration proceedings were initiated
on 28.12.2021 i.e. within three years. The arbitrator also considered
that in view of the Covid-19 situation the limitation period expiring
between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was extended by the Supreme
Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC
117 by ninety days from 01.03.2022. Even if limitation is computed
from 28.05.2018 or 10.07.2018, the claim is still within limitation. It
was concluded that the respondent was not aggrieved of notice dated
17.05.2014 but by the deduction of the shortfall in MGCC from the
final invoices. The cause of action arose on 10.07.2018 when the
deduction was made and therefore the claim is within time. It would
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 5 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



be relevant to note that in the notice dated 17.05.2014 the language
used was that deduction for shortfall in MGCC “if any” shall be made.
There was no occasion for the respondent to raise a dispute on
issuance of the notice in absence of any positive step by the petitioner
either to make the deduction or to quantify the amount.
8. The contention that the arbitrator wrongly recorded that
invoices were submitted in 2018 pursuant to directions of the
petitioner vide letter dated 21.5.2018 does not affect the conclusion
arrived at in the award. It is undisputed that the final invoices were to
be submitted after obtaining no dues and no objection certificate
(NOC) from the department concerned. The NOC from labour
department was obtained in 2018 after which the invoices were
submitted by the respondent and this explains the time gap in
submission of the final invoices. The petitioner deducted LD and
shortfall in MGCC upon submission of the final invoices and paid the
balance amount.
9. By issuing notice dated 17.05.2014 the petitioner had neither
deducted the shortfall in MGCC nor quantified it. The deduction was
made on 10.07.2018 and even if the respondent at the time of issuance
of notice dated 17.05.2014 was aware of the shortfall in MGCC there
was no occasion for the respondent for waiving the right to object to
the deduction. The law is well settled that for waiver of a right the
party waiving such right must have knowledge of the right and the
waiver must be specific. Reference in this regard be made to the
decision in Kalparaj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors
Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 401 wherein the Supreme Court considering
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 6 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



decisions in Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi 1957 SCC OnLine
SC 10 , Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre (2004) 8 SCC 229 and
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770
held:-
“121. It has been held, that a waiver cannot always
and in every case be inferred merely from the failure
of the party to take the objection. Waiver can be
inferred, only if and after it is shown that the party
knew about the relevant facts and was aware of his
right to take the objection in question. The waiver or
acquiescence, like election, presupposes, that the
person to be bound is fully cognizant of his rights,
and that being so, he neglects to enforce them, or
chooses one benefit instead of another.

122. As such, for applying the principle of waiver, it
will have to be established, that though a party was
aware about the relevant facts and the right to take
an objection, he has neglected to take such an
objection.

127......Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a
right. It involves conscious abandonment of an
existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or
privilege. It is an agreement not to assert a right.
There can be no waiver unless the person who is
said to have waived, is fully informed as to his
rights and with full knowledge about the same, he
intentionally abandons them.”



10. The final discharge certificate and the affidavit furnished by the
respondent undertaking not to make further claim shall not act as an
estoppel. The final bills after statutory compliances and having NOC
from the labour department were submitted in 2018, there cannot be
an estoppel based on a reply to a notice issued in 2014 or acts done
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 7 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



prior to submission of the final invoices. Another aspect to be
considered is that no claim was made by the respondent beyond the
contract price and the dispute is against deduction made in 2018 for
shortfall in MGCC which had not arisen at the time of final discharge
and furnishing of the affidavit.
RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CONTRACT
11. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce
Article 2.1 of the contract and clauses 11.1, 11.2, 11.2.1, 14.5.2,
14.6.1, 14.6.2 and 14.6.3 of the GCC.
“ 2.1 Contract Price (Reference GCC Clause 11 &
Appendix-1)
The Employer hereby agrees to pay to the Contractor
the Contract Price in consideration of the performance
by the Contractor of its obligations hereunder. The
Contract Price shall be Rs.44,93,20,127/- (Forty four
crores ninety three lakhs twenty thousand one hundred
and twenty seven only), or such other sums as may be
determined in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Contract. A minimum CENVAT
amount of Rs.4,65,71,592/- (Four crores sixty five
lakhs seventy one thousand five hundred and ninety
two only) shall be passed on to BSP. The contractor
will submit the required documents to BSP for availing
CENVAT credits.

11. Contract Price

11.1 The Contract Price shall be as specified in Article
2 (Contract Price and Terms of Payment) of the
Contract Agreement. The break-up of the Contract
Price is given in the Appendix-1 to the Contract
Agreement.

11.2. Price Basis
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 8 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55




11.2.1 The Contract Price shall be for the entire scope
of the Facilities including spares, oils, grease,
lubricants, flushing liquor, chemicals for pickling etc.
required till commissioning of the Facilities, imported
surplus material and scrap in any form generated in
side the plant premises. The contract price shall be
inclusive of all taxes and duties and comprise inter-alia
of Basic price, excise duty, sales tax, VAT including
sales tax/ VAT on works contract/Works Contract
Tax), octroi. Turn Over Tax (TOT), Entry Tax, Service
Tax, Education Cess and any other duties, taxes and
levies, as may be applicable and prevailing on the base
date of the contract and insurance. The payment of
duties, taxes, levies, etc. will be reimbursed (on actual)
against documentary evidence to be produced by the
contractor, subject to a ceiling (other than Service Tax)
indicated in the price schedule of the contract.

In no case the reimbursement towards duties and taxes,
etc., shall exceed the amount indicated in Appendix-1
towards duties, taxes, levies, etc. (other than Service
Tax) except as indicated in Sub-Clause 14.6.1, hereof.
The contract price shall not include Entry Tax for
indigenous as well as imported supply, which shall be
paid and borne by the Employer. The bidders may
indicate the portion of supply, on which entry tax is
not required to be paid by the Employer and the same
shall be included in contract price. Invoice for supply
of goods shall contain the following:

- Tax payer Identification Number under C.G. VAT
Act.
- In case of supplies manufactured within Bhilai
Municipal Local Area then "Goods Sold are Local
Goods" is to be endorsed.
- In case of Entry Tax paid supplies, "Material is Entry
Tax Prepaid" is to be endorsed.

Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 9 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



14.5 CENVAT Credit

14.5.2 The Contractor shall submit the necessary
documents required by the Employer to avail the
CENVAT Credit. In case the Contractor fails to submit
the required document for claiming the CENVAT
Credit by the Employer in respect of certain plant &
equipment, the amount of Excise Duty on such
indigenous plant & equipment and Counter Veiling
Duty on such imported plant & equipment, shall not be
paid by the Employer to the Contractor.

14.6 Variations in Taxes & Duties

14.6.1 For the purpose of the Contract, it is agreed that
the 'Contract Price' specified in Article 2 ("Contract
Price" & "Terms of Payment") of the Contract
Agreement is based on the taxes, duties, levies and
charges prevailing on Base date (hereinafter called
"Tax" in this Sub-Clause 14.6 hereof). If any rate of
tax is increased or decreased, a new tax is introduced,
an existing tax is abolished, or any change in
interpretation or application of any tax occurs in the
course of the performance of Contract, which was or
will be assessed on the Contractor, Sub-Contractors or
their employees in connection with performance of the
Contract. an adjustment of the Contract Price shall be
made as per Sub-Clauses 14.6.2 & 14.6.3, hereof, by
addition to the Contract Price or deduction therefrom,
as the case may be.

14.6.2 The adjustment in the Contract Price towards
variation in the taxes shall be made by the Employer
on production of the documentary evidences by the
Contractor.

14.6.3 The Contract Price shall be adjusted towards
variations in taxes in respect of only finished
equipment supplied by the Contractor to the Employer.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 10 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



No adjustment in the Contract price shall be made for
variations in the taxes on raw materials, parts,
component / intermediate components, assemblies /
sub-assemblies, etc.”

12. The „contract price‟ as defined in Article 2.1 of the contract is
Rs.44,93,20,127/-, a minimum CENVAT amount of Rs.4,65,71,592/-
was to be passed on by the respondent to BSP.
12.1 As per Clause 11 of the GCC, the basis of the contract price was
the scope of facilities including the consumables required for
commissioning of the facilities, imported surplus material and scrap
generated inside the plant. The contract price was inclusive of taxes,
duties, cess, entry tax applicable and prevailing on the base date of the
contract as well as insurance. The payments of taxes, duties and levies
were to be reimbursed on actual basis subject to production of
documentary evidence by the respondent. The reimbursement was
subject to the ceiling indicated in the price schedule except for service
tax.
12.2 Clause 14 deals with taxes and duties. Clause 14.5.2 obligated
the respondent to submit the necessary documents to BSP for availing
the CENVAT credit. Duty was not to be reimbursed on failure of the
respondent to furnish documents for availing the CENVAT credit.
12.3 Clause 14.6 relates to variation in taxes and duties. Clause
14.6.1 provides that on increase or decrease in the tax rate,
introduction of a new tax, abolition of an existing tax or change in
interpretation or application of tax during the course of the
performance of the contract, the contract price shall be adjusted as per
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 11 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



clauses 14.6.2 and 14.6.3 by making required addition or reduction in
the contract price. Under clause 14.6.2, adjustment of the contract
price for variation in taxes was to be made by the petitioner on
production of documentary evidence by the respondent. Under clause
14.6.3, the contract price was to be adjusted on variation in taxes in
respect of finished equipments supplied and not for variation in taxes
on raw materials, parts, components, intermediatory components,
assemblies or sub-assemblies.
ISSUE
13. Issue is whether the shortfall in MGCC which was not
reimbursed could be deducted from the net contract price of
Rs.40,27,48,535/-?
ANALYSIS
14. The execution of the work and commissioning of facilities are
not in dispute. The admitted position is that there was a shortfall of
Rs.1,40,38,523/- in MGCC, this amount was not reimbursed to the
respondent and deduction was also made from the net contract value
of Rs.40,27,48,535/-.
15. It would be relevant to note that the gross contract price
constituted of following items:

Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 12 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55

16. Article 2.1 provides that the respondent shall ensure passing on
the MGCC of Rs.4,65,71,592/-. The effect is that the gross contract
price was Rs.44,93,20,127/- but after availing the benefit of MGCC
the cost of the work for the petitioner would be Rs.40,27,48,535/-
which is the net contract price after credit of CENVAT and VAT.
Clause 14.5.2 provides that upon failure of the respondent to submit
the required documents for claiming CENVAT there shall be no
reimbursement. Albeit in the case in hand, less excise duty paid
resulted in a shortfall in MGCC but for this eventuality there is no
clause in the contract providing for deduction of the amount for
shortfall in MGCC. There cannot be quarrel with the proposition that
no clause can be read into the contract entered between the parties.
17. The contract value is an amount payable to the respondent for
the work executed and is inclusive of taxes and duties. The MGCC is
not a sum due for the work done but is reimbursement of duty paid
which may vary consequent to several factors including variation in
the rate of taxes and change in the price of items.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 13 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



18. The matter needs to be considered from another angle. The
gross contract value was Rs.44,93,20,127/-. After getting credit of
Rs.4,65,71,592/- of MGCC, the work would cost the petitioner
Rs.40,27,48,535/- (Net Contract Value). The position remained
unchanged despite the shortfall in MGCC. The duty paid of
Rs.3,25,33,069/- was reimbursed for which the petitioner got
CENVAT credit. By not reimbursing the shortfall in MGCC the
petitioner retained the balance amount of Rs. 1,40,38,523/- and the net
cost of the contract remained Rs.40,27,48,535/-. In other words, for
getting an MGCC of Rs.4,65,71,592/- the petitioner had to pay
Rs.44,93,20,127/- but upon reimbursement of excise duty of
Rs.3,25,33,069/-, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.43,52,81,604/- i.e.,
Rs.1,40,38,523/- less. Consequently, the net contract price payable for
the work done remained unaffected by the shortfall in MGCC as it
was not reimbursable and the amount remained with the petitioner.
19. Whether the variation in the rate of tax resulted in shortfall in
MGCC and whether such variation in respect of raw materials,
components etc could lead to adjustment of contract price as per
clause 14.6.1 need not be dilated upon. The arbitrator has rightly
decided that shortfall in MGCC shall not be reimbursed but there
cannot be deduction for shortfall in MGCC thereby rendering the
reasons for shortfall to be inconsequential. For this very reason the
non-compliance with clause 14.6.2. shall not be fatal to the claim of
the respondent.
20. The reliance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on
the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dyna Technologies Private
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 14 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1 and Som
Datt Builders Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2009) 10 SCC 259 to contend
that a non-speaking award should be set aside being violative of
Section 31(3) of the Act is of no avail. The law is well settled that an
arbitrator is not expected to write awards like a judgment of a court.
Reference in this regard be made to the following judgments.
20.1 In Dyna Technologies (supra) it was held that an arbitral
award cannot be equated with a judgment of the Court. The
relevant extract of the judgment is as follows:
“34. The mandate under Section 31(3) of the
Arbitration Act is to have reasoning which is
intelligible and adequate and, which can in
appropriate cases be even implied by the courts from
a fair reading of the award and documents referred
to thereunder, if the need be. The aforesaid
provision does not require an elaborate judgment to
be passed by the arbitrators having regard to the
speedy resolution of dispute.”

20.2 In Som Datt Builders Ltd. (supra), it was held as follows:
“25. The requirement of reasons in support of the
award under Section 31(3) is not an empty
formality. It guarantees fair and legitimate
consideration of the controversy by the Arbitral
Tribunal. It is true that the Arbitral Tribunal is not
expected to write a judgment like a court nor is it
expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in
support of its finding(s) but mere noticing the
submissions of the parties or reference to documents
is no substitute for reasons which the Arbitral
Tribunal is obliged to give......”


(Emphasis Supplied)

Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 15 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



The award gives basis for arriving at the conclusion that the
deduction for shortfall in MGCC could not be made from the net
contract value but from the gross contract price and there is no clause
providing for deduction of shortfall in MGCC.
21. The interpretation of the clauses of the contract is within the
domain of the arbitrators and this court cannot sit in appeal over the
award. Reference in this regard be made to the following decisions of
the Supreme Court:
21.1 In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan
Construction Company Ltd., (2024) 6 SCC 809 it was held as
under:-
“16. Now, we turn to the issue of whether the claim
for the construction of embankment forms part of
the activity of clearing and grubbing and was not
payable as embankment work. We may note here
that two expert members of the Arbitral Tribunal
held in favour of the respondent on this point,
whereas the third member dissented. There cannot
be any dispute that as far as the construction of the
terms of a contract is concerned, it is for the Arbitral
Tribunal to adjudicate upon. If, after considering the
material on record, the Arbitral Tribunal takes a
particular view on the interpretation of the contract,
the Court under Section 34 does not sit in appeal
over the findings of the arbitrator.”

21.2 In Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum
Rajgurunagar, (2022) 4 SCC 463 it was held as under:-
45. The Court does not sit in appeal over the award
made by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court does not
ordinarily interfere with interpretation made by the
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 16 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



Arbitral Tribunal of a contractual provision, unless
such interpretation is patently unreasonable or
perverse. Where a contractual provision is
ambiguous or is capable of being interpreted in more
ways than one, the Court cannot interfere with the
arbitral award, only because the Court is of the
opinion that another possible interpretation would
have been a better one.”

21.3 In Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 236 , the court
relied on Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 and held
as follows:-
“9.1....After referring Section 28(3) of the
Arbitration Act and after considering the decisions
of this Court in McDermott International Inc. v.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International
Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181]
, SCC paras 112-113 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam
Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran [Rashtriya Ispat
Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5
SCC 306] , SCC paras 43-45, it is observed and held
that an Arbitral Tribunal must decide in accordance
with the terms of the contract, but if an Arbitrator
construes a term of the contract in a reasonable
manner, it will not mean that the award can be set
aside on this ground. It is further observed and held
that construction of the terms of a contract is
primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the
Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that
it could be said to be something that no fair-minded

or reasonable person could do.......”

(Emphasis Supplied)

22. The award was passed after considering the relevant clauses of
the contract. The interpretation by the arbitrator is not only plausible
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 17 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



but in the absence of any clause providing for deduction on account of
shortfall in MGCC, is the only interpretation possible.
23. The Calcutta High Court in Steel Authority of India Limited
v. SMS India Private Limited (supra) while dealing with similar
clause of MGCC held that in the absence of specific clause no
deduction can be made.
24. The decision of Delhi High Court relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) v.
Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not apply to the
facts of the present case. In that case there was a specific note
providing that upon failure to furnish documents for availing
CENVAT credit the shortfall would be deducted from the gross
contract price. In the case in hand there is no clause or note providing
for deduction.
25. The challenge to the quantum of costs awarded is ill-founded.
The arbitrator while exercising discretion under Section 31A of the
Act considered the facts of the case and the costs incurred.

CONCLUSION
26. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that:
(a) the claim was filed within three years of deducting the shortfall in
MGCC and also falls within the period of limitation as extended by
the Supreme Court in view of the prevailing pandemic conditions;
(b) No case is made out that the respondent waived the right to raise
objection to the deduction made on account of shortfall in MGCC;
(c) there is no clause for deducting the shortfall in MGCC and clause
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 18 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55



14.5.2 only stipulates that on failure of the respondent to produce
documents for enabling the petitioner to avail CENVAT credit there
shall be no reimbursement of the duty paid;
(d) Despite the shortfall in MGCC the net value of the contract
remained unchanged;
(e) The award gives the basis for the conclusions arrived at and does
not violate Section 31(3) of the Act; and
(f) The interpretation of the contractual clauses by the arbitrator is a
plausible one and is not vitiated by perversity, patent illegality or
conflict with the public policy of India.
27. The petition is dismissed. Pending application stands dismissed.


AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Ha/Ch
Reportable:- Yes
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 19 of 19
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:38:55