M/S Intech Brinechem Limited vs M/S De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010183332024
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 & I.A. 7804/2024
M/S INTECH BRINECHEM LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Rakhi Sharma,
Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Ms.
Ishika Ahluwalia, Ms. Rakhi
Sharma and Ms. Kirti Gupta,
Advs.
versus
M/S DE DIETRICH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Neil Hildreth and Mr.
Kshitiz Arya, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 28.10.2026
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
1
Conciliation Act, 1996 assails an Arbitral Award dated 02.02.2024
passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, in disputes arising out of the
Agreement dated 03.05.2022 between the parties for a work related to
2
detailed Engineering, supply of Outside Battery Limits equipment
and allied services for a Bromine Plant at Rann of Kutch, Gujarat.
2. The total contact value was Rs.53 crores. The Petitioner paid an
advance of Rs.5.30 crores against a performance bank guarantee
furnished by the Respondent.
1
“Act” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 1 of 18
3. Disputes arose regarding performance of the engineering and
other contractual obligations. It is the case of the petitioner that the
Respondent submitted defective engineering drawings and designs
relating to the project and despite repeated emails between June and
September 2022 requesting corrections and review of the drawings,
respondent allegedly failed to provide the contractually obligated
work and ultimately abandoned the work in September 2022.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents’ case is that Petitioner was
itself responsible for the delay and non-execution of work because it
had not obtained the necessary statutory approvals, and did not have
the required land available for the project. Further, the respondent also
alleges that the petitioner failed to make further contractual payments.
5. It emerges from the facts of the present case, that the Petitioner,
in view of the aforesaid dispute, invoked the Bank Guarantee of Rs.
5.30 crore on 07.10.2022 and immediately thereafter initiated
arbitration on 31.10.2022.
6. The Respondent also raised counterclaims for its engineering
work executed, damages due to cancellation and other losses.
7. By way of the Impugned Award dated 02.02.2024, the learned
Sole Arbitrator although held both parties as contributory responsible
for the failure and termination of the Contract dated 03.05.2022,
however, awarded a sum to the tune of Rs. 4 crores to Respondent.
8. The learned Sole Arbitrator held that the Respondent had
2
“OSBL” hereinafter
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 2 of 18
abandoned the work, for reasons attributable to the Petitioner as they
had failed to obtain the necessary statutory approvals and permissions
for establishing the project.
9. The learned Sole Arbitrator rejected the Respondent's
counterclaims towards damages for cancellation, loss due to
manpower and etc. on the ground that the Respondent had failed to
substantiate the same through cogent evidence.
10. The learned Sole Arbitrator also observed that the Respondent
had undertaken certain engineering work in execution of the said
contract and that some layout plans and technical documents had been
approved by the Petitioner.
11. Accordingly, despite rejecting the aforesaid counterclaims of
the Respondent, the learned Sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 4
crores in favour of the Respondent towards the work undertaken by it,
along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, pendente lite and
post award. The learned Sole Arbitrator also awarded Rs. 7,00,000/-
towards litigation costs incurred in proceedings before the
Commercial Court of Paris.
12. Mr. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Petitioner does not wish to press its challenge to the
rejection of its claim towards loss of profit. Additionally, he does not
challenge the rejection of the Respondent’s other counter claims,
which were rejected in favour of the Petitioner.
13. The hinge of the challenge of the Petitioner is directed against
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 3 of 18
the award of Rs.4 crores with interest towards the alleged work
executed, which has been described by the learned Arbitrator as a
“ Guesstimates ” for the work executed and has as such also awarded
an amount of Euros 8000, towards litigation costs relating to the
previous proceedings.
14. Mr. Sharma submits that the learned Sole Arbitrator, despite
rejecting the Respondent’s counterclaims for want of sufficient
evidence, proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 4 crore along with interest
at 10% per annum merely on the basis of “ guesstimates ”, without any
supporting material.
15. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Respondent had
failed to establish the actual work and expenditure incurred with
cogent materials and admittedly had itself abandoned the project and
therefore it was absolutely perverse and patently illegal for the learned
Sole Arbitrator to grant any compensation by going beyond the
pleadings and contractual provisions.
16. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the learned Sole
Arbitrator erroneously attributed responsibility for the failure of the
project to both parties on the ground that the Petitioner had not
obtained statutory approvals and secured possession of the land.
According to him, the learned sole arbitrator overlooked the fact that
the contract did not require physical possession of the land for the
Respondent to perform its engineering obligations.
17. It is also submitted that the Arbitrator wrongly awarded Rs. 7
lakhs towards litigation costs, despite the fact that those proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 4 of 18
were initiated by the Respondent to prevent encashment of the bank
guarantee and were ultimately dismissed. Reliance is placed for the
same on PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O.
3 4
Chidambranar Port Trust , Associate Builders v. DDA and M.O.H.
5
Uduman v. M.O.H. Aslum to contend that an Arbitrator cannot
rewrite the contract, and grant relief beyond its terms or pass an award
without evidentiary foundation.
18. Per contra , Mr. Neil Hildreth, learned Counsel for the
Respondent submits that the Respondent had undertaken substantial
engineering and design work under the Contract, which was duly
accepted and utilised by the Petitioner.
19. It is further submitted that the Petitioner itself was responsible
for the failure of the project, as they failed to procure the requisite
land, obtain environmental clearances and place orders for essential
components.
20. Moreover, as per the learned Counsel for the Respondent, after
utilising the Respondent's engineering designs, the Petitioner
attempted to unilaterally reduce the contractual value from Rs. 53
crore to Rs. 3.75 crore and subsequently recovered the entire advance
payment of Rs. 5.30 crore by encashing the bank guarantee.
21. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondent had claimed
Rs.9,79,16,092/- towards expenses incurred in executing the contract,
apart from Rs.42.50 crore towards loss of profits, and the learned Sole
3
2021 SCC OnLine SC 508
4
(2015) 3 SCC 49
5
(1991) 1 SCC 412
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 5 of 18
Arbitrator, having correctly found that work was actually performed
but its precise value could not be established, reasonably assessed
compensation at Rs.4 crore on the principle of guesstimate.
22. It is contended that such estimation is permissible where the
entitlement to compensation is established but its exact quantification
is difficult. In these circumstances, according to Mr. Hildreth, the
Arbitrator did not travel beyond the contract and exercise equitable
jurisdiction under Section 28(2).
23. It is further submitted that the award of Rs. 7 lakh towards
litigation costs arising from proceedings before the Paris Commercial
Court was justified, because the Petitioner had recovered the advance
amount through encashment of the bank guarantee.
24. Lastly, learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner is merely
seeking reappreciation of evidence and reconsideration of factual
findings, which is impermissible under Section 34, particularly when
the Arbitrator's interpretation represents a plausible and reasonable
view.
25. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition with
exemplary costs.
26. I have heard both the parties at length and perused the record in
its entirety.
27. The scope of interference of Section 34 Courts is settled. I do
not wish to burden this judgment with a detailed discussion on the
Jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 6 of 18
28. It is a settled law that petition under Section 34 is not an appeal
on facts. The Court exercising Section 34 jurisdiction cannot re-assess
the evidence merely because another view is possible, and cannot
substitute its own assessment of the merit for that of the Arbitral
Tribunal.
29. Additionally, the scope of a Court’s jurisdiction under Section
34 is circumscribed by the grounds expressly stipulated therein.
Especially, in case of a domestic award, Section 34(2)(a) permits
interference where patent illegality appears on the face of the award.
30. Thus, this Court shall decide the present dispute with the
limited scope of interference available under the contours of Section
34.
31. The central plank of the Petitioner’s submission is that the
learned Arbitral Tribunal has awarded amount on the basis of
“ guesstimate ”, despite its express finding that no cogent evidence had
been adduced in support thereof.
32. Thus, in order to determine whether the Impugned Award on
the subject matter deserves interference, I shall examine the findings
of the learned Sole Arbitrator through the prism of Section 34 and
figure out if any interference is warranted.
33. At the outset, before understanding the findings rendered by the
learned sole Arbitral Tribunal, it would be apposite to understand the
scope of “guesswork” in arbitral awards.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 7 of 18
34. The Division Bench of this Court in Radiance Infracon and
6
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. held that although
reasonable guesswork is permissible, the Arbitrator must identify
some evidentiary basis, or rational connection between the material
available and the amount awarded. The relevant paragraphs from the
said judgment are being delineated as follows:
“60. Thus, in order to assess whether the reliance on guesswork by
the Arbitrator finding is permissible and consistent with applicable
law, it is necessary to understand the scope of “guesswork” in the
context of arbitral awards.
61. This Court is aware that reliance on a “rough and ready”
estimate or guesswork is not alien to arbitral jurisprudence and
has received recognition from the Supreme Court as well as this
Court.
62. In DDA v. Anand and Associates (supra) , the methodology of
adopting some degree of guesswork was affirmed. The relevant
observations are as follows:
“6. …It is true that while awarding a sum of Rs.
1,91,659/- towards increase in the labour charges
and Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of the increase in the
price of materials, the arbitrator has observed that
no books of accounts had been produced before him
and that he has determined the amount from
whatever is available on record yet interference
with that part of the award would also not be
justified in view of the settled legal positions that
the court would not set aside an award simply
because it was to an extent based upon some
guesswork. Reference may in this regard be made to
Mohd. Salamatullah and Ors. v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh 1977 SC 1481 where the court has
observed:—
“We are not able to discern any tangible
material on the strength of which the High
Court reduced the damages from 15% of the
6
2026:DHC:3043-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 8 of 18
contract price to 10% of the contract price.
If the first was a guess, it was at least a
better guess than the second one. We see no
justification for the appellate court to
interfere with a finding of fact given by the
trial Court unless some reason, based on
some fact, is traceable on the record. There
being none we are constrained to set aside
the judgment of the High Court in regard to
the assessment of damages for breach of
contract.”
(emphasis supplied)
63. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in Cobra
Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. (supra) , while considering
Construction Design (supra) , observed that such a method is a
permissible tool available to an arbitrator, particularly in a
situation where material exists to show that loss has been suffered,
but does not furnish granular details for precise quantification.
64 . More recently, another Division bench of this Court in
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) taking into account Cobra
Instalaciones Y Servicios (supra) , affirmed the adoption of honest
guesswork in the following terms:
35. In our opinion, there may be three
situations. First, there is no evidence of any loss to
a party raising a claim. In such situation arbitrator
cannot presume any loss and award compensation.
Second, where there is evidence of loss as well as
evidence on quantum of damages. This would be an
ideal situation in awarding damages and
compensation. Third is the situation where there is
evidence of loss but either there is meager evidence
or absence of evidence in support of claim of
damages. In such situation the arbitrator can use
rough and ready method by using a practical guess
work to determine the damages and compensation.
But such compensation should be reasonable in the
sense that in given situation no man of prudence
would call it excessive. The third situation occurs in
the present case and therefore, while exercising
very limited jurisdiction under Section 37, we have
only to see as to whether the damages/compensation
awarded to Delkon is reasonable or not.
39. The counter claim no. 3 is towards cost of
pre assembly and part wielding completed. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 9 of 18
Arbitrator had relied upon the report of Local
Commissioner and awarded lesser amount of
interest at the rate of 12% (against 15% as per
clause 57.3 (1) (A) (i) of the contract) of the
contract rate as appropriate and reasonable and
held that value for 12.908 MT works out to Rs.
4182/-. In appeal the appellant submits that clause
57.2 (1A)(i) does not deal with the breakup of the
cost but instead pertains to the payment milestone.
Again in our considered view, even if the aforesaid
clause is misapplied, the awarded amount of Rs.
4182/- is so meager that it has to be accepted as the
cost of pre assembly and part wielding completed.
46. The argument of learned Counsel for the
appellant is that there is no evidence on record to
show that value of T&P was Rs. 40 lakhs. Further,
no evidence has been led to prove respondent's
claim on damages. Learned counsel for the
appellant assailed the method adopted by the
Arbitrator for calculating withholding charges.
*
50. After perusing the material available on
record, we are of the opinion that in respect of the
heavy machinery, the Arbitrator has reached to a
plausible conclusion that the value of the withheld
machinery would be about Rs. 40,00,000/- and the
depreciation value to be Rs. 10,00,000/-. We concur
with the learned District Judge on Arbitrator's
finding on the computation of 210 days and the
methodology adopted for awarding Rs. 5,75,342/- to
the respondent on account of the appellant's illegal
withholding of T&P. In other words the Arbitrator
had some basis for calculating withholding charges
of Rs. 5,75,342/-, which is not at all unreasonable if
we consider the nature of T&P which included
heavy equipments/machinery including two Cranes,
one Tractor, two Trailors and one Metador Pickup
Van etc. and the duration of 210 days for which the
same were withheld. Hence, we agree with the view
of Arbitrator and learned District Judge on contract
clause no. 7 being reasonable and uphold the same.
COUNTER CLAIM NO. 13 AND 15
51. The respondent-Delkon had raised these
counter claims towards cost of mobilization and
demobilization of T&P, equipment and manpower.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 10 of 18
The appellant has drawn our attention to the
observation of Arbitrator that Delkon has not
submitted any documents for actual expenses
incurred by them in mobilization and
demobilization. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.
10,52,800/- is based upon mere surmises and
conjectures.
53. We are of the opinion that even if no
documents were furnished by respondent-
Delkon before the Arbitrator, the conclusion of the
Arbitrator has been arrived at on “the analysis of
unit rates”, which is Annexure -E to Tender No.
BHEL: NR(SCT):RGTTP:BLR:42. This Annexure -
E forms the part of the contract No. 50/96 between
the parties. This finding of Arbitrator, about 65% of
the overheads having been consumed in
mobilization and demobilization, is a finding on fact
and therefore we are not inclined to go deeper into
it especially when it is based upon Local
Commissioner's report. The Arbitrator has
calculated these charges on the basis of Annexure -
E. Therefore, even if no documents were filed by
Delkon to prove expenditure of this overhead, the
calculation by learned Arbitrator is reasonable and
justified.
54. Learned District Judge observed that the
award of amount of Rs. 10,52,800/- towards
mobilization and demobilization costs cannot be
held to be without reasons or material evidence on
record and held that as long as there is sufficient
material available on record on the basis of which
an estimation of loss/expenses/costs incurred can
be drawn, an award of that estimate can be
granted. We are of the opinion that view of learned
District Judge is correct on this issue especially
when the Arbitrator had based his estimation on
the basis of Local Commissioner's report and
“analysis of unit rates” which is part of the
contract . The Arbitrator adopted a rough and ready
method with reasonable and honest guess work on
this issue. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the
impugned award and the impugned judgment on
this issue.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 11 of 18
(emphasis supplied)
65. An analysis of the above-mentioned precedents indicates
that, although the adoption of a “rough and ready” method or
honest guesswork has been judicially recognised, the same is not
unguided.
66. The decision of the Division Bench in Cobra Instalaciones
y Servicios S.A . (supra) clarifies that such latitude is available in a
situation where there is material on record to establish that loss
has indeed been suffered, but the evidence falls short of providing
precise quantification. We note that the above principle stands
further elucidated in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) in
context of unliquidated damages, where this Court upheld the
award of damages not merely because guesswork was employed,
but because such determination was founded upon a discernible
and rational methodology traceable to the material on record.
67. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) , the Court was
dealing with multiple claims where the Arbitrator had awarded
compensation despite absence of strict proof of expenditure under
certain heads. However, in our considered view, what weighed
with the Court while assessing reasonability was that, in each such
instance, the Arbitrator had relied upon some identifiable material
such as contractual clauses, reports of the Local Commissioner,
admitted quantities, or standard rates and had applied a rational
method of computation. Most significantly, while upholding the
award relating to claim for withholding of machinery, the Court
expressly noted that “the Arbitrator had some basis for
calculating… which is not at all unreasonable”. It shows that the
existence of a foundational basis, however limited, is a sine qua
non for sustaining such quantification.
68. The same principle is echoed in DDA v. Anand and
Associates (supra) , where the Court declined to interfere with an
award partly based on guesswork, as the arbitrator had
determined the amount “from whatever is available on record”. It
thus emerges to us that while exactitude in proof of damages is not
insisted upon, the adjudicatory process must nevertheless disclose
a rational nexus between the material available and the figure
ultimately awarded or atleast some line of reasoning in mind of the
learned Arbitrator to justify the reasonability of the figure.
69. This approach also emerges from Gemini Bay
Transcription (P) Ltd. (supra) , wherein, although the guesswork
method was allowed, it was also noted that the Arbitrator had
made assessment taking into account some material on record. The
relevant observations are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 12 of 18
“ 77. The arbitrator correctly held that as nothing
was forthcoming from any of the appellants, he
would have to make a best judgment assessment for
damages. In making that assessment, he took into
account the commission that was being earned by
GBT from the two clients of DMC and arrived at a
figure of 100,000 USD per month and then found,
on a reasonable estimate, that they would continue
to be clients for a period of four years, as a result of
which the figure of 6,948,100 USD was reached.
78. That such "guesstimates" are not a stranger
to the law of damages in the US and other common
law tradition nations has been established very
early on in a judgment of Asutosh Mookerjee, J.
reported as Frederick Thomas Kingsley v. Secy, of
State for India AIR 1923 Cal 49…”
(emphasis supplied)
70. Thus, what the law countenances is not guesswork in
vacuo, but a reasoned approximation founded on some material,
some method, or at the very least, a discernible line of reasoning.”
35. Upon a plain reading of the above, it could be understood that
the key to make an assessment on the basis of guess work is that the
same must be founded upon some identifiable material on record, and
must disclose a rational and discernible methodology connecting such
material to the amount awarded.
36. Thus, while precision or strict proof of the exact quantum of
loss is not invariably necessary, the Arbitrator must furnish a
reasonable basis for the estimation, and the compensation so
determined must not be excessive or disproportionate.
37. Having understood the above principle pertaining to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 13 of 18
“guesswork”, I shall apply the same to the facts of the case.
38. The relevant reasoning of the Arbitrator, appears in Paragraph
Nos. 166 to 169 of the award, the same is reproduced for the sake of
ease of analysis.
“Guesstimates
166. The Respondent had made exorbitant claims on various
counts, however miserably failed to prove its entitlement. In the
facts and circumstances of the case as explained hereinabove,
there was no obligation on the part of the Respondent to act upon
the contract at all. However, it cannot be denied that the
Respondent had taken some steps to execute the contract to a
certain extent, particularly layout plans had been accepted vide
email dated 7.06.2022 (Ann R-12) and PDS of Vent Scrubber, RO
Plant and CL2 Emergency Scrubber stood accepted vide email
dated 11.07.2022 (Ann R-15). Thus, the Respondent cannot be
rendered remediless. Even if the terms of the Contract are ignored,
the Respondent is entitled to some compensation for the work
executed by it.
167. In Construction & Design Services v. DDA, AIR 2015 SC
1282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in exceptional and
given circumstances, the Court may proceed on guesswork as to
the quantum of compensation to be allowed.
168. “Guesstimates” are not a stranger to the law of damages –
when nothing is forthcoming in terms of evidence for loss suffered
– best judgment assessment for damages is to be made. (See:
Gemini Bay Transcription (P) Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd.,
(2022) 1 SCC 753).
169. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the
amount of advance payment and the work done by the Respondent,
an amount of not more than Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore
Only) can be awarded.”
39. Upon a cursory reading of the above, it could be understood
that the learned Arbitrator held that the Respondent had “ miserably
failed to prove its entitlement ” to its claims on the various heads.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 14 of 18
40. The learned Sole Arbitrator recorded that certain layout plans
had been accepted by e-mail dated 07.06.2022 and certain Process
7
Data Sheets had been accepted by e-mail dated 11.07.2022. On that
basis, the learned Arbitrator held that the Respondent could not be
rendered remediless and it was entitled to compensation for work
executed.
41. It can be made out that the learned Arbitrator justified
compensation on the ground that the Respondent had undertaken
certain preliminary steps towards execution of the contract and could
not be left remediless.
42. However, the award of compensation appears to have been
made without identifying any cogent evidence or providing a reasoned
basis for determining the quantum thereof.
43. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs reveals that the learned
Arbitrator, having expressly found that the Respondent had failed to
establish its entitlement to the claims raised, nevertheless proceeded to
award compensation of Rs. 4 crore on the basis of guesstimation.
44. Upon reading the award as a whole, it could be understood that
while certain material evidencing preliminary steps taken towards
execution of the contract was available on record, however, the
impugned award fails to disclose and reason as to how such material
could reasonably justify compensation of Rs. 4 crore. Reasons are
heartbeat of final conclusion and as such recording of reasons ensures
7
“PDS” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 15 of 18
that decisions are based on established norms rather than the
Tribunal’s whims and fancies.
45. I am of the considered view that the mere acceptance of layout
plans and technical documents, without any assessment of the value of
the work actually performed, results in no rational basis for arriving at
the said figure. Further, any amount awarded on the basis of the said
analogy but without any basis and purely on guess work would also
fall foul of section 28(2) of the Act, which clearly says that an arbitral
tribunal shall decide ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur only
if the parties have expressly authorised it to do so.
46. Accordingly, upon a meaningful reading of the impugned award
as a whole, I am of the view that the learned Arbitrator has been
unable to identify any document supporting the quantum awarded and
failed to demonstrate any discernible nexus between the material on
record and the amount determined.
47. As understood in the preceding paragraph, an estimation cannot
be stretched to permit an arbitrary determination of compensation in a
vacuum, particularly when the award itself records that the
Respondent failed to substantiate its claims.
48. It is a settled law that even an estimate must rest upon some
objective foundation from which a reasonable person could arrive at
the amount awarded. In the absence of such a foundation, the figure of
Rs. 4 crore remains unexplained and unsupported.
49. In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid discussion,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 16 of 18
the Impugned Award crosses the line from a plausible assessment of
evidence into patent illegality within the meaning of Section 34(2)(a)
read with Section 28(2) or Section 28(3) of the Act.
50. The second plank of Petitioner’s submission is the award of
Euros 8000 as litigation costs in relation to proceedings concerning
invocation of the bank guarantee.
51. The Tribunal awarded Euros 8,000 to the Respondent in the
present arbitration and reasoned that the Petitioner had indirectly
recovered the advance payment by encashing the bank guarantee and
the Respondent had been entitled to retain the advance at the relevant
stage.
52. This Court is of the view that the fact that the bank guarantee
was eventually encashed does not, without any supported reasoning,
establishes that the Petitioner became liable to reimburse the
Respondent for the costs, which the Paris Court had directed the
Respondent to pay.
53. The reasoning given in award does not address and explain how
the Respondent could recover in arbitration the very amount that the
order directed it to pay to the Petitioner and the bank. The award of
Rs.7 lakhs equivalent to Euros 8000 with interest therefore, suffers
from patent illegality under Section 34(2(a) of the Act.
54. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 17 of 18
in part.
55. The award dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Sole
Arbitrator is set aside to the extent that it awards Rs.4 crores as
compensation on an estimate basis, and Euros 8000 towards litigation
costs in the Paris proceedings.
56. For the sake of clarity, the remaining findings and directions in
the award are left undisturbed.
57. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ gunn
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:06:29
O.M.P. (COMM) 155/2024 Page 18 of 18