Delhi HC Upholds ₹1-Crore Award To Election Tent Supplier, Citing Returning Officers’ Checks Before Dismantling Over Later Finance Objections.

The appellants awarded the respondent a contract to supply tentage, furniture and electrical items on hire for the 1999 General Elections.

The respondent claimed ₹1,00,28,788; the appellants admitted ₹15,22,772 was payable and alleged that the bills were inflated.

The agreement required daily submission of challans, physical verification before dismantling, and scrutiny and approval of bills before payment.

The arbitrator awarded the amount claimed, with interest and costs. The appellants’ Section 34 objections were dismissed by a Single Judge, prompting this appeal under Section 37.

Under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, judicial interference with an arbitral award is limited; patent illegality or perversity may justify setting aside an award, but a plausible view of the evidence is not open to reappraisal merely because another view is possible.

The Court referred to Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49, and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 131, on patent illegality and perversity.

It also relied on State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction (P) Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 1, for the principle that the assessment of the quantum of evidence is ordinarily within the arbitrator’s domain, although an award unsupported by any evidence may be invalid.

Grounds not raised before the Section 34 court cannot be introduced for the first time in a Section 37 appeal.

The Court held that the appellants had pressed only the objection that the bills were inflated and the inquiry reports had been disregarded before the Single Judge; they could not enlarge the challenge in the Section 37 appeal by relying on other alleged failures to comply with Clause 19.

In any event, the arbitrator had considered the Finance Department’s objections against the evidence that the Returning Officers physically verified the supplies and bills before dismantling, and testimony supporting the bills’ correctness.

The later scrutiny and inquiry material was less persuasive in that factual context; some disciplinary reports were either not proved or not before the arbitrator and did not concern the Returning Officers who had carried out the verification.

The arbitrator’s assessment was a plausible evidentiary view, not a perverse or patently illegal one.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Single Judge’s order and arbitral award undisturbed.