Asahi India Glass Pvt Ltd. vs Advantage India Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 12 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011036552025
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025, CM APPL. 80375/2025 (delay in filing)
& CM APPL. 80376/2025 (delay in re-filing)

ASAHI INDIA GLASS PVT LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Mr. Digvijay
Yadav, Mr. Aman Tiwari & Ms. Aditi
Sharma, Advs.

versus

ADVANTAGE INDIA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa, Mr.Siddhartha
& Mr. Puneet Dhawan, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
J U D G M E N T
DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’ ) is directed
against the order dated 04.08.2025 (as modified by order dated 13.08.2025)
passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. (COMM) 462/2022 whereby
application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by the appellant was
rejected.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the present appeal
are that the appellant is a glass and window solutions company manufacturing
automotive safety glasses, float glass, and other glass products whereas the
respondent is engaged in the business of transport and logistics services.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 1 of 7

3. The appellant availed services of the respondent for transporting its
products and entered into agreements dated 11.04.2017 (Roorkee,
Uttarakhand) and agreement dated 25.04.2017 (Taloja, Maharashtra)
(hereinafter referred to as the “agreements”), for tenures of about 3 years
commencing from 11.04.2017 to 31.03.2020 and 25.04.2017 to 24.04.2020
respectively for transportation of its goods. Clause 12 of these agreements
provided for dispute resolution by way of arbitration.
4. By way of e-mail dated 12.09.2018, the appellant terminated the
contract awarded to the respondent, whereupon the respondent invoked
arbitration in terms of clause 12 of the agreements.
5. On 25.01.2021, a sole arbitrator was appointed by this Court under
Section 11 of the Act of 1996.
6. The respondent/claimant filed its Statement of Claim, inter alia
claiming a sum of Rs.2,60,61,183/- owing to investment made in machinery,
vehicles, and delivery equipment and expenditure incurred on manpower for
executing the agreements in question.
7. Apart from the above claim of Rs.2,60,61,183/-, another amount of
Rs.28,90,156/- was claimed for outstanding dues. The appellant (respondent
before the Arbitrator) disputed the liability and took a plea that the claimant is
not entitled to anything and contended that the contract was rightly
terminated. After going through the record and evidence led by both the
parties, the learned Arbitrator passed the award dated 23.06.2022 in the
following terms:
“1. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.7,96,491/- under
Issue No. 1.
2. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.14,32,785/- under
Issue No. 3.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 2 of 7

3. The claimant shall be entitled to proportionate costs
of arbitration.
4. The claimant shall be entitled to interest @8% on
Rs.7,96,491/- from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the pronouncement of the Award.
5. The entire award amount shall be paid to the
claimant within 30 days, failing which it shall entail
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of Award till its
realization.”

8. Against the aforesaid award (dated 23.06.2022) passed by the sole
arbitrator, the appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 challenging the entire award. While arguing, the application under
Section 34 of the Act of 1961 was, however, confined to Issue Nos. 2 and 3, as
can be seen from paragraph no.9 of the judgment dated 04.08.2025 rendered
by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
9. Mr. Neeraj Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the
sole arbitrator had committed an apparent error of law in directing the amount
of Rs.14,32,785/- to be paid by way of the impugned award. He argued that
while holding that the termination was not illegal, the Arbitrator could not
have awarded damages for non-service of 30 days’ notice. While maintaining
that the contract was rightfully terminated, he argued that even if the finding
of the arbitrator is taken to be correct, there was no pleading or claim by the
claimant qua the loss of profit, under which head the amount has been
awarded by the sole arbitrator.
10. He took the Court through the entire claim petition filed by the claimant
and submitted that the entire claim of the claimant was for loss of cost of
investment and there was no pleading or evidence led towards loss of profit
and therefore, the award containing stipulation of 30 days' profit under Issue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 3 of 7

Nos. 2 and 3, is completely contrary to facts and law as these issues do not
even relate to such aspect.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that while doing so,
the arbitrator has reckoned profit of 12.02% without there being any
evidence, and while doing so, he has relied upon an e-mail written by the
claimant's accountant to learned counsel for the claimant, which was placed
on record by the counsel, that too after the evidence was over and when the
matter was being heard finally.

12. He submitted that this aspect/point was brought to the notice of the
Court while arguing the application for setting aside, but such substantial
argument could not persuade the learned Single Judge to set aside the award,
though the same fell squarely within the scope of Section 34 of the Act of
1996. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and judgment of the learned
Single Judge so also the award passed by the arbitrator dated 23.06.2022, be
set aside to the extent of award of Rs.14,32,785/- and interest thereupon.
13. During course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant also
argued that even after termination of the contract on 12.09.2018, the
respondent/claimant had continued to perform the contract, as is evident from
the bill summary, which includes bills raised for the months of October,
November, and December 2018.
14. Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa, learned counsel for the respondent, per contra ,
submitted that argument advanced by the appellant, on the first blush appears
to be attractive, but if the facts of the case in their entirety are examined, it
transpires that the Arbitrator has committed no error of law. By way of
paragraph 4.4 of the claim petition, the claimant had claimed loss due to
wrongful termination of the contract, for the entire period of the contract on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 4 of 7

the ground that had the contract not been terminated by the appellant, it would
have earned so much of the amount, which plea of the claimant did not find
favour with the arbitrator.
15. He further submitted that having held that the appellant had erred in not
giving 30 days’ notice before terminating the contract, the arbitrator confined
the claimant’s claim to 30 days. And rather than giving the claim for the entire
contract period, the Arbitrator awarded the amount only for a period of 30
days, and for doing so, the learned arbitrator has calculated average monthly
turnover of the claimant as Rs.1,17,44,138.17/- and adopted profit figure of
12%.
16. He added that true it is, that there was no evidence led by the claimant
so far as rate of profit is concerned but in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Ors. v. State of
Gujarat (1984) 4 SCC 59 , the arbitrator was justified in taking a reasonable
rate of profit. And in order to arrive at a reasonable figure, the counsel for the
claimant had produced before the arbitrator, profit earned by the claimant
during different years, and out of which a rate of profit which deemed
appropriate to the arbitrator has been taken.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that in such matters, if the
sole arbitrator has adopted a reasonable and moderate rate of profit (12%), no
interference is warranted that too when this Court is considering an appeal
under Section 37 of the Act of 1996.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
19. The short question involved in the present case is as to whether the
learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the application filed by the
appellant under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 5 of 7

20. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified,
given the limited scope of Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The reason are not
far to seek.
21. So far as appellant's argument noted in paragraph no.12 is concerned,
we are of the view that the e-mail dated 12.09.2018 terminating the contract,
itself contained a stipulation that the respondent will have to clear all the
pending orders. That apart, the fact that after termination of the contract, the
respondent/claimant has issued invoices does not ipso facto mean that it had
continued to work. Because, invoices can be raised for any prior period,
including for the work which has been executed for the period prior to the date
of termination.
22. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the claim
petition, as filed by the claimant, does not contain any pleading or claim so far
as loss of profit is concerned, on first look, appears appealing, but when the
claim petition as a whole is considered in the background of the explanation
given by learned counsel for the respondent, the approach adopted by the sole
arbitrator turns out to be perfectly justified. True it is, that the claimant had
asked for damages/loss on account of wrongful termination which according
to it, was for the remaining period of the contract after the termination
(12.09.2018). The sole arbitrator did not agree with such contention and held
that the termination of the contract was not proper, as the same could have
been done only after service of a notice of 30 days. However, for this venial
breach rather than restoring the contract, the Arbitrator confined the
claimant's claim for the notice period – 30 days.
23. As a matter of fact, the claim of the claimant has been confined to a
period of one month rather than for the remaining period (13.09.2018 to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 6 of 7

31.03.2020 and 13.09.2018 to 24.04.2020). According to us, the appellant's
argument that the sole arbitrator has awarded an amount which was not
claimed by the claimant is attractive but the same has no substance in the eyes
of law.
24. It is noteworthy that the arbitrator has taken a figure of
Rs.1,17,44,138.17/- as average monthly turnover of the claimant, which is
based on evidence led by the claimant and what is not based on the evidence is
the rate of profit (12.02%), which according to us cannot be said to be
arbitrary in any manner. The rate of profit in any case is an estimate or a
guesswork, which an arbitrator may reasonably reckon, based on the facts and
circumstances of the case, depending upon the nature of business and
contract.
25. Neither the Court deciding an application under Section 34 of the Act
1996 nor can we, sitting in appeal against such order, alter or interfere in the
rate of profit so reckoned by the arbitrator unless the same is shockingly high.
26. We neither find any merit or substance in the appeal nor do we find any
ground warranting our interference under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. The
appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. All pending applications are also
disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA)
JUDGE

ADITI CHOUDHARY
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 12, 2026
kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:15.10.2026
18:27:01
FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2025 Page 7 of 7