Delhi Jal Board vs M/S Rajora Builders
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC013179852016
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016
DELHI JAL BOARD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Rajbala
and Mr. Ritik Anmol, Advs.
versus
M/S RAJORA BUILDERS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Hunny Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 25.08.2026
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
1
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Delhi Jal Board assailing
the arbitral award dated 22.07.2013 rendered by the learned Sole
Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chopra (Retd.).
2. The dispute arises out of the work relating balance work of
construction of 15 MGD Sewage Pumping Station at Geeta Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi. The work was awarded to the Respondent vide letter
dated 10.01.1992 for a value of Rs.36,65,799.08/-, with the stipulated
date of commencement as 25.01.1992 and the stipulated date of
completion as 24.01.1993.
3. The work was ultimately completed on 22.01.1997. The learned
Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to the order dated 19.01.2007
passed by this Court. The proceedings before the learned Arbitrator
continued thereafter and culminated in the award dated 22.07.2013.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 1 of 11
The Petitioner challenges the award principally on the grounds of
limitation, acceptance of the final bill and measurements, appointment
and reliance upon the report of the technical expert, award under claim
nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11.
4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Respondent has opposed the petition and submits that the award is a
finding of facts after considering the entire material on record and
there is no need for this court’s interference under Section 34 of the
Act.
5. It is also submitted that the plea of limitation was not taken by
the Petitioner before the learned arbitrator and is sought to be raised
for the first time in the objections.
6. It is also submitted that the final bill relied upon by the
Petitioner was not accepted by the Respondent and that the technical
expert was appointed with the consent of the parties, the name of the
expert having itself been suggested by the Petitioner-Delhi Jal Board.
7. The principal objection of the Petitioner is that the claims
adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator are barred by limitation. It is
pleaded that the work was completed in January, 1997 and that
arbitration was invoked for the first time on 18.07.2005.
8. Ms. Rajbala, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
1
“the Act” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 2 of 11
further relies upon the final bill submitted on 19.03.1997, payment
made on 26.08.1997 and the alleged finalisation of the subsequent bill
on 21.12.1998.
9. On the contrary, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Respondent, has stated that the bill submitted on
19.03.1997 was the pre-final bill and that the alleged 16th and final
bill was shown to the Respondent only in September, 1999.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent
specifically pointed out, vide letter dated 20.09.1999, that the bill was
incomplete and that several quantities were missing. Thereafter, the
Respondent continued to address letters and reminders to the
Petitioner, including the letters dated 12.01.2000, 16.06.2000,
14.07.2001, 06.02.2002 and 25.07.2002.
11. The Petitioner thereafter wrote on 02.09.2002 that the matter be
sorted out and on 15.09.2003 informed the Respondent that the case
was under process of approval and would be finalized at the earliest.
Arbitration was invoked by letter dated 18.07.2005.
12. Significantly, the Respondent has specifically pleaded that no
objection regarding limitation was taken by the Petitioner before the
learned Arbitrator and that the award itself does not record any
adjudication of such an objection.
13. In view of this court, the material placed with the petition does
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 3 of 11
not demonstrate that the learned Arbitrator was called upon to
adjudicate the present limitation objection in the manner in which it
has been raised before this Court.
14. The Petitioner has sought to rely upon the measurements
recorded by it and the payment made against the 15th running bill.
15. However, the Respondent's case before the learned Arbitrator
was that the 16th and final bill was neither accepted by it nor passed
by the executive engineer and that the omissions and incorrect entries
therein had been repeatedly pointed out. This aspect finds specific
consideration in the arbitral award.
16. In the circumstances, the objection based upon limitation,
insofar as it seeks to invite this Court to substitute its own conclusion
for the findings reached by the learned Arbitrator on the factual
controversy concerning the final bill, cannot be accepted.
17. Under the claim No. 1, the claimant had originally sought
Rs.13,71,251.58/- towards balance payment. During the arbitral
proceedings, the claimant agreed that the amount found payable by the
Technical Expert could be awarded. The Technical Expert, Shri S.C.
Gupta, Retd. Chief Engineer, Delhi Jal Board who was appointed with
consent of the parties inspected the site, considered the material and
submitted his report dated 07.07.2010.
18. The learned arbitrator considered the objections raised by the
Petitioner and held that the objections were baseless and without
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 4 of 11
substance. It was found that the work executed by the claimant had not
been correctly recorded in the measurement books, that the 16th and
final bill did not bear the signatures of the claimant or the Executive
Engineer, and that the bill did not give a true picture of the quantities
of work executed at site.
19. The expert found the total value of the work executed as
Rs.44,61,401.28/-, against which Rs.36,02,884.95/- had been paid,
leaving a balance of Rs.8,56,763.38/-. The said amount was
accordingly awarded under claim no.1.
20. The objection raised by the Petitioner is that Clause 10 B of the
contract contained a mechanism for recording measurements and that
the measurements were final and binding in the absence of any
protest. The Respondent, however, submits that the technical expert
was appointed with the consent of the parties and was engineer from
Delhi Jal Board only and that the expert was a person suggested by the
Petitioner itself.
21. In view of the circumstances recorded in the award, particularly
the fact that the technical expert was appointed in the proceedings and
that his report was considered after site inspection and examination of
the measurement books, this Court finds no sufficient basis, from the
grounds raised, to interfere with the award of Rs.8,56,763.38/- under
claim no.1.
22. Claim No.2 was for Rs.20,50,000/- on account of expenditure
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 5 of 11
allegedly incurred because the Respondent's E&M work was not
completed in time.
23. The learned arbitrator found that the site remained with the
Respondent for more than three years before it was handed back for
completion of finishing items. Although the learned arbitrator did not
accept the claimant's asserted expenditure of Rs.50,000/- per month, it
was held that watch and ward staff was required to be maintained
during the prolonged period. One or two watchmen were found
sufficient and the expenditure was assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month
for 34 months, resulting in an award of Rs.5,10,000/-.
24. The contention of the Petitioner is that one or two watchmen
were found sufficient, the amount could not have been assessed at
Rs.15,000/- per month. The award, however, specifically records the
basis upon which the learned arbitrator restricted the claim and
assessed the expenditure. The Respondent has also submitted that the
award under this claim is a finding of fact upon consideration of the
material available on record.
25. I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that this is a
finding of fact and this court cannot substitute its view.
26. The objection is, therefore, not sufficient to warrant interference
with the finding recorded under claim no.2.
27. As far as claim no.4 is concerned, it is the case of the claimant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 6 of 11
that, because of non-availability of the required steel bars, dewatering
had to be continued with pumps and generator sets.
28. Upon consideration of the correspondence and material on
record, the learned arbitrator found that the Respondent had not
fulfilled its obligation regarding supply of steel bars of the required
diameter. At the same time, the learned arbitrator did not accept the
deployment of 20 pumps and three generators and assessed the
requirement at six motors and two generators. A sum of Rs.5,10,000/-
was consequently awarded.
29. Under claim no.5, the learned arbitrator considered the
continued dewatering from 06.07.1992 onwards. The award records
that the drawings for the building were supplied belatedly and that the
Respondent had itself admitted that drawings for the plinth area were
sell to be made.
30. The learned arbitrator concluded that the execution of the work
was delayed on account of delays on the part of the Petitioner and
assessed the dewatering at Rs.7,500/- per day for 179 days, awarding
Rs.13,40,500/-.
31. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner highlights condition no.3
of the contract, under which the contractor was to keep the works well
drained and free from standing water. The Petitioner therefore
contends that no extra amount for dewatering could have been
awarded.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 7 of 11
32. On the contrary, the Respondent submits that the claims under
claim nos.4 and 5 were not based upon routine dewatering
contemplated under the contract, but upon losses caused by breaches
committed by the Petitioner, particular failure to provide cement, steel
and etc. It is further submitted that the learned arbitrator recorded
findings of fact on the basis of the material placed before him.
33. A reading of the award shows that the learned arbitrator
considered the contractual provision relied upon by the Petitioner in
the factual selling of the dispute and thereafter recorded findings
regarding the non-supply of the required steel and drawings and the
consequent expenditure on dewatering. T
34. The challenge raised by the Petitioner seeks, in substance,
reconsideration of the evidence and the factual conclusions reached by
the learned arbitrator. No sufficient ground is made out, on the
material placed before this Court, to interfere with the awards under
claim nos.4 and 5.
35. Under claim no.10, the learned arbitrator considered Clause
10CC of the contract and the circumstances in which extension of time
had been granted without levy of compensation. The award records
that the execution of the work was delayed on account of failure on
the part of the Delhi Jal Board to perform its part of the contract and
accordingly held the claimant entitled to escalation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 8 of 11
36. The escalation was assessed at Rs.5,28,792.70/-, from which
Rs.9,171.07/- already paid was deducted, leaving Rs.5,19,621.63/-.
37. The operative part of the award accordingly records an award of
Rs.5,19,621.63/- under claim no.10.
38. According to this court, the Petitioner could not establish any
good ground warranting interference with the said finding.
39. The learned arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the amounts awarded, with effect from 21.04.1997, treating
that date as the date on which the defect liability period of three
months expired and the claimant became entitled to the amounts due.
The learned arbitrator gave reasons for awarding interest, noticing the
findings regarding incorrect recording of the measurement books,
delay in supply of drawings and material and the prolonged period
taken by the E&M Department.
40. The Petitioner contend that the interest component is
disproportionate to the principal amount and that the learned arbitrator
ought to have declined interest or fixed it at a lower rate. The
Petitioner has also relied upon the period between completion of the
work and invocation of arbitration and the period during which the
arbitration proceedings continued.
41. The award, however, records reasons for the rate and
commencement of interest. The rate awarded is 9% per annum simple.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 9 of 11
The challenge raised by the Petitioner essentially seeks
reconsideration of the discretion exercised by the learned arbitrator
after adjudication of the claims. No good ground has been shown to
interfere with the said award of interest.
42. The learned arbitrator has dealt with the individual claims
separately and has recorded reasons for allowing or declining the
claims.
43. Claim no.1 was considered with the assistance of the technical
expert appointed with consent of the parties and was from Delhi Jal
Board only, claim no.2 was assessed after rejecting the larger amount
asserted by the claimant, claim nos.4 and 5 were considered in the
context of the Petitioner's failure to provide the required steel and
drawings, claim no.10 was considered with reference to Clause 10CC;
and the award of interest and costs has also been supported by reasons
recorded in the award.
44. The grounds raised by the Petitioner substantially seeking re-
appreciation of the evidence and reconsideration of findings of fact
recorded by the learned Arbitrator.
45. The Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate, from the
material forming part of the present record, that the award suffers
from such infirmity as would justify setting it aside within the scope
of Section 34 of Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 10 of 11
46. Accordingly, the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.
47. The arbitral award dated 22.07.2013 passed by the learned Sole
Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chopra (Retd.), is upheld.
48. There shall be no order as to further costs.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
AUGUST 25, 2026/ ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:29:22
O.M.P. (COMM) 549/2016 Page 11 of 11