National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs Intercontinental Consultants And Technocrats Private Limited In Joint Venture With Anandjiwala Infra Advisory Pvt. Ltd.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 13.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 20.04.2026

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023, I.A. 8628/2023, I.A. 10083/2023 &
I.A. 21689/2025


NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Senior
Adv. with Mr. Upmanyu
Tewari & Mr. Surya Kapoor,
Advs.

versus

INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND
TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED IN JOINT
VENTURE WITH ANANDJIWALA INFRA
ADVISORY PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Chitale, Senior Adv.
with Mr. Pradip Kumar, Ms.
Kominica Bose, Ms. Aparna
Banerjee & Mr. Mrigank, 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‟) against the arbitral award
dated 02.01.2023 (for brevity „award‟).
2. The necessary facts are that the respondent was a successful
bidder in a Request for Proposal (RPF) invited for consultation
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 1 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

services. The parties to the lis entered into the contract agreement
dated 22.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as „CA‟) whereunder the
respondent was to provide Consultancy Services as Authority's
Engineer for Supervision Construction of (i) Connecting Road from
Z-Morh Tunnel to Zojila Tunnel and (ii) 14.150 KM long
bidirectional tunnel across Zojila Pass to on the Sonmarg-Kargil
Section of NH-01 on EPC mode in the Union Territories of Jammu &
Kashmir and Ladakh.

2.1 The letter dated 05.01.2021 was issued and the respondent was
directed to mobilize the staff. The petitioner vide letter dated
09.04.2021 suspended the services of the respondent as Authority‟s
Engineer. The revocation of the suspension was sought by the
respondent vide communications dated 19.04.2021, 07.06.2021 and
17.06.2021. However, on 07.07.2021, the petitioner under clause
2.9.1(g) of the General Conditions of Contract (for brevity „GCC‟)
issued a show cause notice (for short „SCN‟) for termination. The
written explanation was sought from the respondent regarding alleged
engagement in corrupt and fraudulent practices for competing in RPF.
The responses dated 12.07.2021 and 26.07.2021 to the SCN were
filed.
2.2 The respondent challenged the suspension order, the SCN and
re-tendering of work by filing W.P.(C) 10268/2021 titled
M/s Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. In JV with
Anandjiwala Infra Advisory Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways and
Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Another. On
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 2 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

15.09.2021 the petitioner made a statement that the suspension is
going to be revoked, the fresh tender is to be withdrawn and
claimant/respondent shall be permitted to perform the contract. In
view of statement the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
2.3 The suspension was revoked vide letter dated 22.09.2021. The
respondent by the letter dated 22.09.2021 sought release of withheld
bills for the period from January 2021 to March 2021 and claimed
payments for the suspension period from April 2021 to August 2021.
Receiving no response, the respondent made attempts to amicable
settle and upon failure thereof, invoked arbitration proceedings under
clause 8.4.2 of the GCC.
2.4 The arbitrator held the suspension to be illegal, awarded an
amount of Rs.5,44,04,340/- for the suspension period and litigation
costs to the tune of Rs.6,18,500/- on account of litigation expense
against illegal suspension. Interest of Rs.3,18,079/- on delayed
payments from January 2021 to March 2021, pendente lite interest of
Rs.35,70,487/- and further interest of Rs.41,99,845/- from 29.03.2022
till date of award were granted. In case of non-payment of the amount
by 31.01.2023 interest was to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent
relying upon a wrong certificate of experience fraudulently claimed
eligibility. The vigilance inquiry was marked however, due to the
death of the alleged defaulting official of the petitioner the matter
could not proceed. The submission is that the suspension of the
respondent was bona-fide and this issue despite having been
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 3 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

specifically pressed before the arbitrator was not dealt with and the
impugned award is non-speaking.
3.1 Submission is that the respondent had not submitted monthly
invoices which were to be scrutinized, there was no evidence adduced
by the respondent of the actual payment made to the employees and
yet the arbitrator awarded payments. The reliance is on
communication dated 19.04.2021 to contend that in response to the
letter of suspension the respondent demobilized the staff.

4. Per contra , the petitioner having failed to defend the illegal
suspension, made a statement before the High Court revoking the
suspension order. The submission is that the fresh tender was
withdrawn and the respondent till date continues to perform the work.
It is emphasised that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the
Act is limited, the plausible view of the arbitrator cannot be interfered
with.
4.1 The letters dated 27.09.2021, 20.10.2021 and 24.01.2022 are
relied upon to fortify that the staff was available at the site and this
information was repeatedly communicated to the petitioner. It is
canvassed that the invoices raised for the period of suspension were
supported by evidence.
5. During the pendency of this petition the arbitral record was
requisitioned but the arbitrator informed that the record had gone
missing. Learned counsel for the parties consented that the relevant
documents have been placed before this court and matter be heard on
merits on that basis.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 4 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

6. The relevant clauses of GCC are reproduced below:
“ 2.8. Suspension
The Client may, by written notice of suspension to the
Consultants, suspend all payments to the Consultants
hereunder if the Consultants fail to perform any of their
obligations under this Contract, including the carrying out
of the Services, provided that such notice of suspension
(i) shall specify the nature of the failure, and (ii) shall
request the Consultants to remedy such failure within a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days after receipt by the
Consultants of such notice of suspension.
2.9 Termination
2.9.1 By the Client
The Client may, by not less than thirty (30) days' written
notice of termination to the Consultants (except in the
event listed in paragraph (f) below, for which there shall
be A written notice of not less than sixty(60)days), such
notice to be given after the occurrence of any of the
events specified in paragraphs(a)through(h)of this Clause
GC 2.9.1, terminate this Contract.
(a) if the Consultants fail to remedy a failure in the
performance of their obligations hereunder, as specified
in a notice of suspension pursuant to Clause GC 2.8
herein above, within thirty(30)days of receipt of such
notice of suspension or within such further period as the
Client may have subsequently approved in writing;
(b) if the Consultants become (or, if the Consultants
consist of more than one entity, if any of their Members
becomes) insolvent or bankrupt or enter into any
agreements with their creditors for relief of debt or take
advantage of any law for the benefit of debtors or go into
liquidation or receivership whether compulsory or
voluntary;
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 5 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

(c) if the Consultants fail to comply with any final
decision reached as a result of arbitration proceedings
pursuant to Clause GC 8 hereof;
(d) if the Consultants submit to the Client a statement
which has a material effect on the rights, obligations or
interests of the Client and which the Consultants know to
be false;
(e) if, as the result of Force Majeure, the Consultants are
unable to perform a material portion of the Services for a
period of not less than sixty (60) days; or
(f) if the Client, in its sole discretion and for any reason
whatsoever, decides to terminate this Contract.
(g) if the consultant, in the judgment of the Client has
engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing
for or in executing the Contract. For the purpose of this
clause:
"corrupt practice" means the offering, giving, receiving or
soliciting of anything of value to influence the action of a
public official in the selection process or in contract
execution.
"fraudulent practice" means a misrepresentation of facts
in order to influence a selection process or the execution
of a contract to the detriment of the Borrower, and
includes collusive practice among consultants (prior to or
after submission of proposals) designed to establish price
sat artificial non-competitive levels and to deprive the
Borrower of the benefits of free and open competition.
(h) if EPC Contractor represents to Employer that the
Consultant is not discharging his duties in a fair, efficient
and diligent manner and if the dispute remains
unresolved, Employer may terminate this contract.
6.2 Remuneration and Reimbursable Expenditures
(a) Subject to the ceilings specified in Clause GC6.l(b)
hereof, the Client shall pay to the Consultants (i)
remuneration as set forth in Clause GC6.2(b),and (ii)
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 6 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

reimbursable expenditures as set forth in Clause
GC6.2(c).If specified in the SC, said remuneration shall
be subject to price adjustment as specified in the SC.
(b) Remuneration for the Personnel shall be determined
on the basis of time actually spent by such Personnel in
the performance of the Services after the date determined
in accordance with Clause GC2.3 and Clause SC2.3 (or
such other date as the Parties shall agree in writing)
(including time for necessary travel via the most direct
route) at the rates referred to, and subject to such
additional provisions as are set forth, in the SC.
(c) Reimbursable expenditures actually and reasonably
incurred by the Consultants in the performance of the
Services, as specified in Clause SC6.3(b).
6.4 Mode of Billing and Payment
(b) As soon as practicable and not later than fifteen
(l5days) after the end of each calendar month during the
period of the Services, the Consultants shall submit to the
Client, in duplicate, itemized statements, of the amounts
payable pursuant to Clauses GC 6.3 and 6.4 for such
month. Each monthly statement shall distinguish that
portion of the total eligible costs which pertains to
remuneration from that portion which pertains to
reimbursable expenditures.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently defended the
suspension order and the issuance of SCN for termination of the
contract by stating that the awarding of the work to the respondent has
a grey history and the matter is pending before the vigilance. It was
fairly stated that due to the demise of one of the concerned official the
matter has not proceeded further. The issues raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that suspension and issue of SCN was a
bona-fide act need not be dilated. Suffice to say that the petitioner in a
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 7 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

writ petition filed by the respondent, stated that the suspension was
revoked, the fresh tender was withdrawn and respondent was
permitted to continue with work. It is admitted fact that the respondent
till date continues to provide services in consonance with the work
awarded.
8. The arbitrator rightly held that in the GCC the only clause for
suspension was clause 2.8 and the case in hand does not fall in it.
Rather the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
suspension was not under clause 2.8 of the GCC.
9. The issue that suspension and issuance of SCN was a bona-fide
act had lost relevance after withdrawal of suspension order, SCN and
decision taken that the respondent shall continue with the project and
was not required to be dealt in detail in the award.
10. I t is settled law that an arbitral award cannot be equated with
the judgment of the court. Section 31(3) of the Act mandates reasoned
award but the reason can be implied from fair reading of the award.
The circumstances for not dealing with the contention that suspension
and issue of SCN was bona-fide are mentioned in the award. The
contention that the award is violative of Section 31(3) of the Act is of
no avail. It is fruitful to cite following decisions of the Supreme Court:
10.1 In Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
(2019) 20 SCC 1, 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:
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 8 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

“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.”

10.2 In Som Datt Builders Ltd. v. State of Kerela (2009) 10 SCC
259 , 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)

11. The issuance of SCN under clause 2.9 of the GCC lost
relevance after withdrawal of re-tender of work and the decision taken
that respondent shall continue with work, this issue also calls for no
adjudication.
12. On 09.04.2021 the services of the respondent were suspended
due to pendency of examination of complaint received with regard to
experience claimed for submitting the bid. The respondent on
19.04.2021 requested for revocation of the suspension. It was
specifically stated that due to suspension the respondent had no choice
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 9 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

but to keep on hold the expatriate and other staff. The contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that on suspension the
respondent demobilized the staff is factually ill-founded in view of the
letter dated 19.04.2021. By letter dated 07.06.2021, the respondent
stated that due to illegal suspension from 09.04.2021 the experts
continued to be deployed at the site and must be paid by the petitioner.
The same information was reiterated vide communication dated
17.06.2021.

13. After revocation of suspension by letter dated 22.09.2021, the
respondent by letter dated 22.09.2021 submitted invoices from April
2021 to September 2021 and also sought release of the payments from
January 2021 to March 2021. The petitioner by an office memo dated
14.10.2021 requested the respondent to submit the details of actual
deployment of key personnel and supporting staff at site during the
suspension period. The relevant portion is quoted below:
“2. In view of the above, it is requested to submit the
details of actual deployment of the Key Personnel and
Supporting staff at site during suspension period i.e, from
09.04.2021 like attendance SHEET (BIOMETRIC OR
REGISTER), Rent Agreement of office and residential
accommodation, Vehicle Agreement/Lease etc, if any
latest by 6.10.2021 for further necessary action.”
14. The office memo was responded to on 20.10.2021, annexing the
following proofs: (i) the attendance register maintained at the office
site; (ii) the copy of the register of Hotel Iqbal signed by the hotel
owner and the caretaker where the residential accommodation and
office of the authority‟s engineer was arranged; (iii) the copy of the
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 10 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

agreement between the respondent and the hotel; (iv) log books and
rent agreement of the rented vehicles; (v) papers of company vehicle;
and (vi) log book of the vehicle of the company. Having received no
response the arbitration proceedings were invoked.
15. Neither before the arbitrator nor before this court the documents
furnished by respondent have been disputed. The objection is to the
absence of proof of actual payments of salary. The law is well settled
that the determination of quantum of evidence falls within with
exclusive domain of the arbitrator and plausible view of arbitrator
cannot be interfered under Section 34 of the Act. Reference in this
regard be made to the following decision:
15.1 The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete
Construction (P) Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 1 held:
“55.While the quantum of evidence required to accept
a claim may be a matter within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide, if there was no
evidence at all and if the arbitrator makes an award of
the amount claimed in the claim statement, merely on
the basis of the claim statement without anything more,
it has to be held that the award on that account would
be invalid. Suffice it to say that the entire award under
this head is wholly illegal and beyond the jurisdiction
of the arbitrator, and wholly unsustainable.”
16. The arbitrator considering the invoices and the collateral
evidence concluded that the staff mentioned in the invoice continued
to be deployed at the site and there was no proof that the staff was
demobilized. The view of the arbitrator is plausible and in absence to a
challenge to the evidence adduced, no case is made out for
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 11 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

interference under Section 34 of the Act. There cannot be any quarrel
with the proposition that under Section 34 of the Act court does not sit
in appeal and possibility of another view is not a ground for
interference.
16.1 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.”
16.2 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
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.”
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 12 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00

17. The litigation cost awarded by the arbitrator after considering
the evidence on record suffers from no legal or factual error much less
perversity.
18. The interest granted is as per clause 6.4 of the GCC as agreed
between the parties and is consistent with the contractual terms.
19. Section 31A(3) of the Act bestows discretion upon the arbitrator
to determine costs considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
A reasonable figure quantified by the arbitrator taking into
consideration the various factors calls for no interference.
20. The view taken by the arbitrator is plausible and is not vitiated
by patent legality, perversity or conflict with the public policy of
India. No case is made out for interference under Section 34 of the
Act.
21. The petition is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed
of.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
APRIL 20, 2026/ha

Reportable:- Yes
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 173/2023 Page 13 of 13
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
10:50:00