Wadia Techno Engineering Services vs Director General Married Accommodation Project - Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Wadia Techno Engineering Services ... vs Director General Of Married ... on 24 March, 2026

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 24.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 24.03.2026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 195/2024
WADIA TECHNO ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Sr. Adv.
along with Mr. Anirudh
Sanganeria, Mr. Himanshu Raj,
Ms. Pragati Singh, Mr. Rajat
Joshi and Ms. Esha Garg, Advs.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MARRIED ACCOMMODATION
PROJECT & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj,
CGSC along with Mr.
Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit
Kumar Rana and Ms. Pragati
Trivedi, Advs.
Mr. Arnav Kumar and Ms.
Manya Gupta, Advs.

                 +     FAO(OS) (COMM) 196/2024
                       WADIA TECHNO ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED
                                                                   .....Appellant
                                     Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Sr. Adv.
                                               along with Mr. Anirudh
                                               Sanganeria, Mr. Himanshu Raj,
                                               Ms. Pragati Singh, Mr. Rajat
                                               Joshi and Ms. Esha Garg, Advs.
                                     versus
                       DIRECTOR GENERAL, MARRIED ACCOMMODATION
                       PROJECT & ANR                          .....Respondents
                                     Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj,
                                               CGSC      along      with     Mr.
                                               Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit
                                               Kumar Rana and Ms. Pragati
                                               Trivedi, Advs.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 1 of 42
11:49:55
Mr. Arnav Kumar and Ms.
Manya Gupta, Advs.

                 +     FAO(OS) (COMM) 198/2024
                       WADIA TECHNO ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED
                                                                   .....Appellant
                                     Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Sr. Adv.
                                               along with Mr. Anirudh
                                               Sanganeria, Mr. Himanshu Raj,
                                               Ms. Pragati Singh, Mr. Rajat
                                               Joshi and Ms. Esha Garg, Advs.
                                     versus
                       DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MARRIED ACCOMMODATION
                       PROJECT & ANR                          .....Respondents
                                     Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj,
                                               CGSC      along      with     Mr.
                                               Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Amit
                                               Kumar Rana and Ms. Pragati
                                               Trivedi, Advs.
                                               Mr. Arnav Kumar and Ms.
                                               Manya Gupta, Advs.

                       CORAM:
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                                 JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Appeals, filed by the Appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟], assail the correctness of the common judgment dated 28.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(COMM) 518/2023, OMP(COMM) 526/2023 and OMP(COMM) 527/2023.
2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 2 of 42 11:49:55 adjudicated three petitions filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging separate arbitral awards rendered in disputes arising between the parties. Insofar as OMP(COMM) 518/2023 is concerned, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition by setting aside the arbitral award only in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 3 in the Vizag Case, permitting the parties to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings in respect of the said claims. In respect of the remaining claims, the petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed OMP(COMM) 526/2023 and OMP(COMM) 527/2023, relating to the Pune and Ahmednagar cases, and rejected all other claims of the Appellant, including claims arising out of risk and cost contracts, prolongation of contract, and miscellaneous claims concerning deductions and service tax/GST.

1. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeals is whether the learned Single Judge erred in affirming the findings of the learned Arbitrator in respect of the claims rejected in the Vizag, Pune, and Ahmednagar cases, particularly:

i. Claims for enhancement of consultancy fees on account of
variations in project cost;

ii. Claims relating to services provided under risk and cost
contracts;

iii. Claims arising out of prolongation of the contract and defect
liability period; and

iv. Miscellaneous claims relating to deductions and service Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 3 of 42 11:49:55 tax/GST.
4. Since the issues in all three present Appeals are similar and
involve the same set of parties, the same are being disposed of through
this common judgment. For clarity and structured analysis, the
Appeals are addressed case-wise and claim-wise, strictly following the
issues as raised in the impugned awards.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

1. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
                Appeals, it would be apposite to briefly notice the relevant factual
                background giving rise to the disputes between the parties.
   

2. The Appellant is a consultancy firm engaged in providing
                professional services in relation to planning, design, supervision and
                project management of construction projects. The Respondent, the
                Director General of Married Accommodation Project and its
                administrative authority, is responsible for execution of various
                infrastructure and construction projects through engagement of
                contractors and consultants.
   

3. In furtherance of certain construction projects undertaken by the
                Respondent, the Appellant was appointed as a Consultant under
                separate consultancy agreements for three different projects, namely:
   

i. a project at Visakhapatnam (Vizag),

                 ii.    a project at Pune, and

                 iii.   a project at Ahmednagar Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters                 Page 4 of 42 11:49:55 Although these projects were geographically distinct and governed by
                 separate    consultancy        agreements,      the   contractual   framework
                 governing the rights and obligations of the parties was substantially
                 similar. The agreements contained provisions regarding preparation of
                 Detailed Project Reports [„DPRs‟], tendering of contracts, supervision
                 of works, and assistance to the Respondent in project completion,
                 including risk and cost contracts.

1. Under the said consultancy agreements, the Appellant was
   entrusted with a range of professional responsibilities relating to the
   planning and execution of the projects. These included, inter alia, the
   preparation of the DPRs, preparation of tender documents for
   appointment of contractors, evaluation of bids and submission of
   recommendations to the Respondent, supervision of construction
   activities during the execution phase; and assistance to the Respondent
   in the finalisation of bills and completion of the project.

2. The consultancy fee payable to the Appellant under the
   agreements was structured as a percentage of the "Project Cost", as
   defined under the respective consultancy agreements, and was payable
   in specified stages corresponding to the progress of the project, in
   accordance with Clause 1.10 of the agreements.

3. The contracts further provided that, in the event the Respondent
   terminated the engagement of a contractor and proceeded to complete
   the remaining works through a risk and cost contract, the Appellant
   would be required to assist the Respondent in the preparation of tender
   documents, evaluation of bids and recommendation of contractors for Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 5 of 42 11:49:55 the said risk and cost works. For such services, the Appellant was
   entitled to separate compensation at the rate specified in the contract.

4. The consultancy agreements also contained provisions relating
   to the project completion schedule, which broadly contemplated
   completion of the projects within a period of approximately 20-30
   months, subject to the timelines for the various preliminary stages
   such as preparation and approval of the DPR and the tendering
   process.

5. However, the contracts contained a specific stipulation, set out
   in Note 1 to Article 24, that in the event of delay in completion of the
   project for reasons attributable to the execution of the works, the
   consultancy agreement would be deemed to stand extended without
   any additional financial implication, and the consultant would not be
   entitled to claim extra compensation merely on account of such delay.

6. Vizag Project:

13.1. Under the consultancy agreement executed between the parties,
the Appellant was appointed as Consultant for a construction project
to be executed at Visakhapatnam (Vizag).

13.2. In terms of the said agreement, the Appellant undertook the
preparation of the DPR and other pre-construction documentation,
following which the Respondent awarded the construction contract to
a contractor selected through the tendering process.

13.3. During the course of execution of the project, certain disputes
arose between the parties concerning the computation of consultancy Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 6 of 42 11:49:55 fees payable to the Appellant. The Appellant asserted that it was
entitled to consultancy charges calculated in accordance with Clause
1.10 of the contract, which linked the consultancy fee to the Project
Cost, including variations and deviations occurring during execution
of the works.

13.4. According to the Appellant, the Respondent failed to compute
and pay the consultancy charges on the correct basis and consequently
withheld amounts that were legitimately due to the Appellant (Claim
Nos. 1-3).

13.5. Apart from the aforesaid dispute relating to consultancy fees,
the Appellant also raised claims arising out of the alleged prolongation
of the project, contending that the project was completed over a
substantially longer period than originally envisaged, thereby
requiring the Appellant to continue rendering consultancy services for
an extended duration (Claim Nos. 4 and 7).

13.6. The Appellant further raised certain ancillary claims, including
claims relating to deductions allegedly made from its bills as well as
claims pertaining to service tax/GST adjustments (Claim Nos. 5 & 6).

1. The Pune Project: 14.1. The Appellant was also engaged by the Respondent as Consultant for another construction project located at Pune, under a consultancy agreement substantially similar to the one governing the Vizag project.

14.2. During the execution of the Pune project, the contract awarded Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 7 of 42 11:49:55 to the original contractor came to be terminated, and the Respondent
proceeded to complete the remaining works through engaging a
contractor under a risk and cost contract.

14.3. The Appellant contended that the award of the risk and cost
contract resulted in a substantial increase in the overall cost of the
project and that, consequently, the consultancy fee payable to it ought
to have been recalculated on the basis of the enhanced project cost.

14.4. The Respondent, however, disputed this contention and
maintained that the consultancy fee payable to the Appellant was to be
determined only with reference to the originally accepted contract
value, and that the Appellant was entitled only to the separate
compensation stipulated under the contract for services rendered in
relation to the risk and cost tender.

14.5. Similar to the Vizag project, the Appellant also raised claims in
relation to prolongation of the consultancy services, contending that
the completion of the project was substantially delayed and that the
Appellant had incurred additional expenditure in maintaining
personnel at the project site during the extended period.

1. The Ahmednagar Project:

15.1. The third consultancy agreement between the parties pertained
to a construction project at Ahmednagar, which was also governed by
contractual terms substantially similar to those applicable to the Vizag
and Pune projects.

15.2. As in the case of the Pune project, the contract awarded to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 8 of 42 11:49:55 original contractor for the Ahmednagar project was terminated during
the course of execution, and the remaining works were subsequently
completed through risk and cost contracts.

15.3. The Appellant again asserted that the increase in the cost of the
project as a consequence of the risk and cost contracts entitled it to a
higher consultancy fee under the contractual provisions governing
computation of consultancy charges.

15.4. The Respondent disputed the said claim and contended that the
consultancy fee payable to the Appellant was governed by the specific
provisions of the contract dealing with risk and cost works, under
which the Appellant was entitled only to a limited additional
compensation calculated at the stipulated percentage of the value of
the risk and cost contracts.

15.5. The Appellant also raised claims in relation to alleged
prolongation of the project, contending that the duration of the project
had extended far beyond the originally contemplated timeline.

1. Arbitral Proceedings- Disputes having arisen between the
   parties in relation to the aforesaid issues, the same were referred to
   arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the respective
   consultancy agreements.

2. The learned Arbitral Tribunal adjudicated the disputes arising
   out of each of the three consultancy agreements and rendered three
   separate arbitral awards in relation to the Vizag, Pune and
   Ahmednagar projects.
   Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 9 of 42 11:49:55

3. Being aggrieved by the arbitral awards, the Appellant instituted
   petitions under Section 34 of the Act before this Court seeking to set
   aside the awards. The said petitions were registered as OMP(COMM)
   518/2023 - Vizag Project, OMP(COMM) 526/2023 - Pune Project
   and OMP(COMM) 527/2023 - Ahmednagar Project, corresponding to
   the three arbitral awards.

4. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge partly
   allowed OMP(COMM) 518/2023 (Vizag Project) by setting aside the
   arbitral award only in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 3, while dismissing
   the petition in respect of the remaining claims. The petitions
   OMP(COMM) 526/2023 and OMP(COMM) 527/2023 were
   dismissed in their entirety.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present
   Appeals.
   CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

6. Contentions of the Appellant:

21.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant assailed
the Impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as
the arbitral awards dated 17.08.2023 on several grounds. It was
contended that both the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned Single
Judge failed to correctly interpret the provisions of the Consultancy
Agreements governing the relationship between the parties and
thereby erroneously rejected the legitimate claims of the Appellant.

21.2. At the outset, it was submitted that the consultancy agreements Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 10 of 42 11:49:55 executed between the parties expressly stipulated that the consultancy
fee payable to the Appellant was to be computed as a fixed percentage
of the "Project Cost", as defined under Article 1.9 of the Consultancy
Agreements. It was contended that the said definition of "Project
Cost" was subsequently amended through amendments issued by the
Respondent, whereby the project cost was to be calculated as the
summation of the cost of contracts concluded with the lowest
tenderers, adjusted with the cost of variations and deviations during
execution of the works.

21.3. It was submitted that upon a proper interpretation of the
amended definition of "Project Cost", the consultancy fee payable to
the Appellant necessarily stood linked to the actual cost of the
construction contracts executed for completion of the project.
Consequently, any increase in the overall project cost during
execution of the works would proportionately enhance the consultancy
fee payable to the Appellant.

21.4. It was submitted that in the present case, the projects were
initially awarded on the basis of estimated project costs. However,
during the course of execution, the project costs substantially
increased owing to several circumstances including delays in
execution, termination of original contractors in certain projects, and
award of fresh contracts for completion of the remaining works.

21.5. In this regard, it was pointed out that in the Pune/Kirkee-
Lonavala project, after termination of the original contractors, fresh
contracts were awarded on a "risk and cost" basis to new contractors, Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 11 of 42 11:49:55 resulting in a significant escalation in the overall project cost.
Similarly, in the Vizag project, the construction contractor failed to
complete the works within the stipulated time, resulting in a prolonged
construction period and a substantial increase in the final project cost.

21.6. It was contended that despite the substantial increase in project
cost in all the projects, the learned Arbitral Tribunal erroneously
rejected the Appellant‟s claim for enhancement of consultancy fee by
relying upon Clause 22(q)(iv) of the Contract Agreements. According
to the Appellant, the said clause merely provided for a limited
compensation of 0.10% of the value of risk and cost contracts for
certain specified services, such as preparation of risk and cost tender
documents, drafting of advertisements, evaluation of tenders and
recommendation of contractors, and was confined only to the
additional work connected with processing of such tenders.

21.7. It was submitted that the learned Arbitral Tribunal erred in
construing Clause 22(q)(iv) as a limitation on the Appellant‟s
entitlement to consultancy fee calculated on the enhanced project cost.
It was contended that the overall consultancy services rendered by the
Appellant under Clause 22 of the agreements were far wider in scope
and included supervision of construction, project management,
monitoring of execution and coordination with contractors through the
Appellant‟s deployed engineering staff.

21.8. It was further submitted that the Appellant had discharged all
responsibilities assigned under Clause 22 of the agreements
throughout the extended execution period and had continued to Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 12 of 42 11:49:55 provide consultancy and supervisory services at the project sites far
beyond the originally stipulated construction period.

21.9. It was contended that both the learned Arbitral Tribunal as well
as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Appellant had
in fact rendered services for a significantly extended duration as
compared to the original contractual timelines. While the contracts
contemplated completion of the construction phase within
approximately 27-32 months, the actual execution of the projects
continued for substantially longer periods owing to delays attributable
to contractors and administrative decisions of the Respondent.

21.10. It was submitted that during the entire extended period, the
Appellant remained contractually obliged to maintain a full
complement of engineering and supervisory staff at the project sites in
accordance with the staffing requirements specified in Appendix-G of
the Contract Agreements, and that the Appellant had accordingly
deployed the requisite project management teams at the sites
throughout the execution period, incurring substantial expenditure
towards salaries and operational costs of such personnel.

21.11. It was contended that despite the Appellant having rendered
services for the extended duration, no additional compensation was
granted either towards the increased project cost or towards escalation
of staff remuneration during the prolonged execution period.

21.12. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Arbitral
Tribunal rejected the Appellant‟s claim for escalation during the
extended period on the ground that the Appellant had failed to lead Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 13 of 42 11:49:55 evidence regarding deployment of staff. According to the Appellant,
such reasoning was contrary to the contractual framework, since non-
deployment of the required staff would have attracted recoveries and
penalties under Clause 24 of the agreements. However, no such
deductions were ever made by the Respondent during the course of
execution of the projects.

21.13. It was therefore argued that the absence of any such deductions
clearly demonstrated that the mandatory staff had in fact remained
deployed at the project sites throughout the extended period, and the
Tribunal erred in requiring further proof of staff deployment in the
absence of any contrary evidence from the Respondent.

21.14. It was further argued that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to take
into consideration Article 16 of the Contract Agreements which
incorporated the principles of fairness and good faith in performance
of the contract. It was submitted that under Article 16, both parties had
undertaken to act in good faith and adopt reasonable measures to
ensure realisation of the objectives of the contract.

21.15. According to the Appellant, the said clause recognised that it
would be impractical for the contract to provide for every possible
contingency that may arise during the course of execution and
therefore contemplated fair adjustment between the parties in the
event the contract operated unfairly to either side. It was contended
that the Respondent failed to adhere to the obligations flowing from Article 16 and did not take any steps to address the financial hardship
suffered by the Appellant due to the prolonged execution period and Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 14 of 42 11:49:55 escalation of costs.

21.16. It was also contended that both the Arbitral Tribunal as well as
the learned Single Judge failed to properly consider the legal
principles governing interpretation of standard form contracts.
According to the Appellant, the Consultancy Agreements were drafted
entirely by the Respondent and the Appellant had no opportunity to
negotiate the contractual terms.

21.17. In such circumstances, it was argued that any ambiguity in the
contractual clauses ought to have been interpreted in favour of the
Appellant by applying the doctrine of contra proferentem, particularly
when the Respondent, being a State instrumentality, possessed greater
bargaining power.

21.18. It was contended that escalation in costs and damages arising
from prolonged execution of contracts are recognised incidents in
construction projects and may be awarded where delay is attributable
to the employer. It was submitted that the learned Arbitral Tribunal
ignored the settled legal position that damages and compensation
arising out of delay may be awarded even on a reasonable estimation
where the factual circumstances demonstrate financial impact on the
contractor or consultant.

21.19. Apart from the errors in contractual interpretation, learned
counsel also assailed the Impugned Judgment on the ground that the
learned Single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Section 34 of the Act in its correct perspective. It was contended that
the learned Arbitral Tribunal returned findings which were manifestly Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 15 of 42 11:49:55 erroneous and contrary to the material placed on record. However, the
learned Single Judge adopted an unduly restrictive approach and
declined interference without examining whether the arbitral awards
suffered from patent illegality or perversity.

21.20. It was submitted that the disputes between the parties arose out
of contracts relating to execution of works at Vizag, Pune and
Ahmednagar, and though separate arbitral proceedings were initiated
in respect of each project, the contractual structure, obligations of the
parties and the nature of claims raised by the Appellant were
substantially similar. According to the Appellant, the learned Arbitral
Tribunal adopted an erroneous interpretation of the contractual clauses
governing the rights and liabilities of the parties, which was
mechanically affirmed by the learned Single Judge without adequate
judicial scrutiny.

21.21. Elaborating the challenge, it was argued that the findings
recorded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal suffer from patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award, inasmuch as the Tribunal ignored
vital evidence placed on record by the Appellant demonstrating that
the Respondent had committed breaches of its contractual obligations,
resulting in delays and financial losses to the Appellant.

21.22. It was further submitted that the Tribunal adopted a selective
approach in appreciation of evidence by placing undue reliance upon
documents produced by the Respondent while disregarding
contemporaneous correspondence, site records and contractual
documentation relied upon by the Appellant, thereby rendering the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 16 of 42 11:49:55 findings perverse.

21.23. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the Tribunal‟s interpretation of the contractual clauses
governing payments, obligations of the parties and allocation of risk
was contrary to the plain language of the agreements and effectively
amounted to rewriting the contractual terms between the parties.

21.24. With specific reference to OMP(COMM) 518/2023, it was
submitted that although the learned Single Judge set aside the arbitral
award in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and permitted fresh arbitral
proceedings in respect thereof, the learned Single Judge ought to have
set aside the award in its entirety, since the errors vitiating Claim Nos.
1 to 3 equally affected the findings in respect of the remaining claims,
including those relating to prolongation of the contract, alleged
deductions from bills, and tax-related claims.

21.25. It was further contended that the findings returned by the
Tribunal in relation to the said remaining claims, particularly those
concerning prolongation and ancillary monetary claims, were
intrinsically connected with the issues arising in Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and
therefore the award could not have been sustained in part while setting
aside only a limited portion thereof.

21.26. In respect of OMP(COMM) 526/2023 and OMP(COMM)
527/2023, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
dismissing the petitions in their entirety without examining the
fundamental infirmities in the arbitral awards.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 17 of 42 11:49:55 21.27. It was lastly submitted that the Impugned Judgment reflects an
overly deferential approach to the arbitral awards and does not apply
the settled tests established by the Supreme Court for interference
under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. It was contended that where an
arbitral award is vitiated by patent illegality, perversity or manifest
misinterpretation of the contract, the courts are duty bound to
intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice.

1. Contentions of the Respondent:

22.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent
opposed the present Appeals and supported the arbitral awards dated
17.08.2023 as well as the Impugned Judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge. It was submitted that the arbitral awards are well-
reasoned awards passed after due consideration of the contractual
provisions, pleadings and evidence on record, and therefore do not
warrant interference in proceedings under Section 37 of the Act.

22.2. At the outset, it was submitted that the Appellant had been
appointed as a "Detailed Engineering and Project Management
Consultant" in respect of construction of married accommodation
projects undertaken by the Respondent. Under the Consultancy
Agreements executed between the parties, the Appellant was required
to render consultancy services during the pre-construction,
construction and post-construction stages of the projects.

22.3. It was submitted that the scope of services to be rendered by the
Appellant included preparation of the detailed project report, design
and drawings, preparation of bill of quantities and cost estimates, Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 18 of 42 11:49:55 tender documentation and evaluation of bids, quality control and
assurance, supervision of contractor performance, scrutiny of running
and final bills, and submission of project progress reports, among
other functions connected with project management.

22.4. It was further submitted that the disputes between the parties
arose in relation to three separate projects located at Vizag,
Pune/Kirkee-Lonavala and Ahmednagar-Deolali-Nasik. Although
separate arbitral proceedings were conducted in respect of each
project, the nature of the claims raised by the Appellant broadly fell
into two principal categories, namely:

i. claims for enhancement of consultancy fees consequent to
increase in project cost; and

ii. claims for additional compensation on account of prolongation
of the contract.

22.5. It was submitted that the learned Arbitral Tribunal, upon
examining the contractual provisions and the evidence placed on
record, rejected the claims raised by the Appellant. The said findings
were thereafter examined by the learned Single Judge under Section
34 of the Act, who found no ground to interfere with the arbitral
awards, except to the limited extent of Claim Nos. 1 to 3 in
OMP(COMM) 518/2023 relating to the Vizag project, which were set
aside with liberty to the parties to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 19 of 42 11:49:55 I. Claims relating to enhancement of consultancy fees- (Pune and
Ahmednagar Projects)

                 22.6.   Insofar     as    the    projects       at   Pune/Kirkee-Lonavala and
                 Ahmednagar-Deolali-Nasik are concerned, learned counsel submitted
                 that the Appellant sought enhancement of consultancy fees on the
                 ground that the overall project cost increased during the course of
                 execution after termination of the original construction contractors and
                 engagement of new contractors on a "risk and cost" basis.

22.7. It was submitted that under Clause 1.10 of the Consultancy
Agreements, the Appellant was entitled to consultancy fees calculated
as a fixed percentage of the "Project Cost", as defined under Clause
1.9 of the contract. It was submitted that the increase in project cost in
the said projects occurred not on account of variations or expansion of
the original scope of work, but due to termination of the original
contractors and award of fresh contracts for completion of the balance
work on a risk and cost basis.

22.8. In this regard, reliance was placed on Clause 22(q)(iv) of the
Instructions to Bidders, which specifically governs the situation where
risk and cost contracts are awarded. It was submitted that the said
clause expressly stipulates that in such a situation the consultant shall
be compensated only for the additional services rendered in
connection with preparation of risk and cost tender documents,
evaluation of bids and recommendation of contractors, at the rate of
0.10% of the value of the risk and cost contracts.

22.9. Learned counsel emphasised that the clause further clarifies that Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 20 of 42 11:49:55 for the purpose of computing the settled consultancy fee, the amount
of the original contract shall be taken into account and the amount of
risk and cost contracts shall not be considered. It was therefore
contended that the contractual framework itself contemplated the
possibility of termination of contractors and award of risk and cost
contracts, and specifically limited the compensation payable to the
consultant in such circumstances.

22.10. According to the Respondent, the Appellant had already been
paid the additional fee at the rate of 0.10% of the value of the risk and
cost contracts for the services rendered in connection with preparation
and processing of such tenders. In view of the express contractual
stipulation, it was submitted that the Appellant could not claim
enhancement of consultancy fees under Clause 1.10 by taking into
account the value of the risk and cost contracts.

22.11. It was submitted that the learned Arbitral Tribunal rightly
rejected the said claims by holding that the Tribunal, being a creature
of contract, is bound to decide disputes strictly in accordance with the
terms of the contract. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to
contend that Section 28(3) of the Act mandates that arbitral tribunals
shall decide disputes in accordance with the terms of the contract and
applicable law. It was therefore submitted that the interpretation
adopted by the Tribunal was consistent with the contractual provisions
and could not be interfered with in proceedings under Sections 34 or
37 of the Act.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 21 of 42 11:49:55 (Vizag Project)

                 22.12. Learned counsel submitted that the Vizag project stood on a
                 slightly different footing, inasmuch as the increase in project cost in
                 that case occurred on account of increase in the value of the original
                 construction contracts rather than due to engagement of risk and cost
                 contractors.

22.13. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, took note of this distinction
and accordingly set aside the arbitral award only in respect of Claim
Nos. 1 to 3 relating to enhancement of consultancy fees for the Vizag
project and granted liberty to the parties to pursue fresh arbitral
proceedings in respect thereof. It was submitted that the Appellant has
nevertheless challenged the rejection of the remaining claims relating
to the Vizag project, which were rightly rejected by the learned
Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge.

II. Claims relating to prolongation of the contract-

22.14. It was further submitted that the Appellant had raised claims in
all three arbitrations seeking additional compensation on account of
alleged prolongation of the contracts and the continued deployment of
manpower during the extended execution period. It was submitted that
the said claims were correctly rejected by the learned Arbitral
Tribunal on several independent grounds.

22.15. Firstly, it was submitted that the contracts between the parties
were not construction contracts but consultancy agreements, under Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 22 of 42 11:49:55 which the Appellant was responsible for supervising the execution of
works carried out by the contractors. It was submitted that the
Respondent was neither executing the construction works nor
supervising the contractors, and therefore any delay in execution of
the construction works by the contractors cannot be attributed to the
Respondent as a client. It was further submitted that the Appellant
itself had admitted in its Statement of Claim that delays in completion
of the projects occurred due to poor performance of the construction
contractors.

22.16. Secondly, it was submitted that the claims for prolongation
costs were expressly barred by the contractual provisions governing
the relationship between the parties. In particular, reliance was placed
on Note 1 to Article 24 of the Consultancy Agreements, which
expressly provides that in the event of delay in completion of the
project for any reason whatsoever, the consultant shall not be entitled
to any compensation or additional charges and the consultancy
agreement shall be deemed to have been extended with "nil" financial
effect.

22.17. It was also pointed out that the financial proposal submitted by
the Appellant provided that the remuneration payable to the consultant
shall remain firm and that no escalation whatsoever would be payable
on any account except where there is an increase in the scope of work
ordered by the Respondent. It was therefore submitted that the
contractual terms clearly prohibited payment of any additional
compensation on account of prolongation of the project.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 23 of 42 11:49:55 22.18. Thirdly, it was submitted that the Appellant had failed to lead
any reliable documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged
expenditure incurred during the extended period. It was submitted that
although the Appellant claimed reimbursement of expenses allegedly
incurred towards deployment of manpower, no proof of actual
payments or expenditure was placed on record.

22.19. It was submitted that the Appellant relied only upon the
increase in the Consumer Price Index to estimate prolongation costs,
which cannot be treated as proof of actual expenditure incurred by the
consultant. It was further submitted that under Note 5 to Article 24 of
the contract, the consultant was required to demobilise its team in the
event that the project work was suspended or stopped for any reason.

22.20. In the present case, learned counsel submitted that the
construction work had admittedly remained suspended for certain
periods between termination of the original contracts and award of
fresh contracts. In such circumstances, the Appellant could not claim
reimbursement of manpower costs for the said period.

III. Miscellaneous claims (Vizag Project)-

22.21. Insofar as the Vizag project is concerned, it was submitted that
certain additional claims were raised by the Appellant relating to
alleged wrongful deductions from bills and variation in service tax and
GST. It was submitted that the said claims were rightly rejected by the
learned Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge on the
ground that the Appellant failed to produce any supporting documents
or bills to substantiate the alleged deductions or tax liabilities.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 24 of 42 11:49:55 IV. Scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act-

22.22. It was lastly submitted that the present Appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the limited scope of interference available under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. It was submitted that the arbitral
awards in the present case represent a plausible interpretation of the
contractual provisions and the evidence on record, and therefore do
not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity warranting
interference.

22.23. Learned counsel emphasised that the court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 34 does not sit in appeal over the arbitral
award and cannot reassess or re-appreciate the evidence. It was further
submitted that in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the scope of
interference is even narrower, particularly where the findings of the
arbitral tribunal have been affirmed by the court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 34.

22.24. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the Appellant is
essentially seeking a re-appreciation of the contractual provisions and
evidence on record, which is impermissible in proceedings under Section 37 of the Act.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, the following issues arise for consideration in the present Appeals:

I. Whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 25 of 42 11:49:55 upholding the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the
Appellant‟s claims for enhancement of consultancy fees in respect of
the Pune/Kirkee-Lonavala and Ahmednagar-Deolali-Nasik projects.

II. Whether the learned Arbitral Tribunal and the learned Single
Judge erred in rejecting the Appellant‟s claims for prolongation costs
and additional compensation for the extended duration of the projects.

III. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the
rejection of the Vizag project claims other than Claim Nos. 1 to 3,
thereby warranting interference under Section 37 of the Act.

IV. Whether the Impugned Judgment suffers from any jurisdictional
error in the exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, so as to warrant interference by this Court
under Section 37 of the Act.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
24. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.

1. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of
   interference available to this Court while exercising appellate
   jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act. It is well settled that
   proceedings under Section 37 do not entail a rehearing on merits. The
   appellate court does not sit in appeal over the findings of fact returned
   by the Arbitral Tribunal. Interference is warranted only where the
   court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 has either ignored the
   well-settled parameters governing challenges to arbitral awards or Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 26 of 42 11:49:55 where the findings recorded suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or
   manifest error apparent on the face of the record.

2. The scheme of the Act clearly reflects the legislative intent to
   minimize judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings. An arbitral
   award is intended to achieve finality and is not liable to be interfered
   with merely because another view of the matter is possible. So long as
   the interpretation adopted by the learned Arbitral Tribunal is a
   plausible interpretation of the contract and is based on material placed
   before it, courts are required to exercise restraint and refrain from
   substituting their own interpretation in place of that adopted by the
   tribunal.

3. The scope of interference under Section 34 has been
   consistently delineated by the Supreme Court. The court examining a
   challenge to an arbitral award is not required to re-appreciate evidence
   or re-assess contractual interpretation merely because the court might
   have arrived at a different conclusion. Interference is justified only
   when the award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, is
   patently illegal appearing on the face of the award, or is so perverse
   that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion.

4. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 37, the appellate
   court is required to examine whether the learned Single Judge
   correctly applied the aforesaid principles while adjudicating the
   petitions under Section 34 of the Act. If the approach adopted by the
   court under Section 34 is consistent with the settled legal position and
   the findings do not disclose any manifest error, the appellate court Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 27 of 42 11:49:55 would ordinarily refrain from interfering with the impugned judgment.

5. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, the issues arising in
   the present Appeals are examined as follows:

ISSUE I- Claim for Enhancement of Consultancy Fees on Account of
Increase in Project Cost:
30. The principal grievance raised by the Appellant relates to the
rejection of its claim seeking enhancement of consultancy fees on
account of the alleged increase in the cost of the projects. According
to the Appellant, the consultancy fee under the Consultancy
Agreements was calculated as a percentage of the "Project Cost"

(Article 1.9), and therefore any escalation in the project cost during
execution of the project necessarily entitled the Appellant to a
corresponding increase in its consultancy fee. Article 1.9 of the
Consultancy Agreement reads as under-

"PROJECT COST" shall mean summation of cost of contracts
concluded with lowest tenderers adjusted with cost of
variation/deviation during execution.

Note:· It is expressly mentioned that project Cost shall not include
cost of land and escalation, if any and percentage quoted by
consultant of project cost shall not be paid on cost of land, escalation,
if any."
31. The Arbitral Tribunal, while examining this contention in
detail, noted that the Consultancy Agreements defined "Project Cost"

with reference to the estimated cost of the project as approved at the
stage of entering into the consultancy agreement and that the
consultancy fee (Article 1.10) was expressed as a fixed percentage of
such project cost, payable in predetermined stages linked to the
progress of consultancy services. Article 1.10 of the Consultancy Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 28 of 42 11:49:55 Agreement reads as under-

""CONSULTANCY CHARGES (SETTLED FEE)" shall mean the
amount calculated by multiplying the percentage quoted by the
consultant in his financial proposal with project cost."
32. The Tribunal further observed that the consultancy fee was
expressly stipulated as a fixed percentage of the project cost identified
in the agreement and was payable in predetermined stages linked with
the progress of the consultancy services. The contractual framework
did not contain any provision which expressly provided for automatic
revision or escalation of consultancy fees on account of subsequent
increase in project cost.

1. On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the consultancy fee
   payable to the Appellant was contractually fixed with reference to the
   project cost specified in the agreements and was not intended to vary
   with subsequent changes in the project cost during execution of the
   project.

2. The Tribunal also examined the Appellant‟s argument that the
   projects were ultimately executed on a "risk and cost" basis and that
   such execution resulted in a substantial increase in the overall cost of
   the projects. The Tribunal observed that such escalation occurred due
   to the manner in which the projects were eventually executed and
   could not be construed as altering the contractual basis on which
   consultancy fees had originally been agreed between the parties.

3. The learned Single Judge, while considering the challenge
   under Section 34 of the Act, examined the reasoning adopted by the
   Tribunal and found that the interpretation placed upon the contractual Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 29 of 42 11:49:55 provisions by the Tribunal was a plausible and reasonable
   interpretation. The learned Single Judge observed that the Tribunal
   had examined the relevant contractual clauses in detail and had
   provided cogent reasons for rejecting the Appellant‟s claim for fee
   escalation.

4. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge concluded that the
   findings of the Tribunal did not suffer from patent illegality or
   perversity warranting interference under Section 34 of the Act.

5. Having examined the reasoning of both the Arbitral Tribunal
   and the learned Single Judge, this Court finds no infirmity in the
   approach adopted in the Impugned Judgment. The interpretation of
   contractual provisions is primarily within the domain of the Arbitral
   Tribunal. Unless such interpretation is demonstrably unreasonable or
   contrary to the express terms of the contract, courts exercising
   jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 would ordinarily refrain from
   substituting their own view.

6. In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the contractual
   definition of "Project Cost" (Article 1.9), the structure of consultancy
   fees (Article 1.10), and the absence of any clause providing for
   escalation of consultancy fees. The conclusion reached by the
   Tribunal that the consultancy fee was not subject to revision merely
   because the cost of the project increased during execution cannot be
   said to be an interpretation that is implausible or contrary to the
   contract.

7. The contention of the Appellant that the Tribunal failed to Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 30 of 42 11:49:55 appreciate the commercial intent of the parties also does not merit
   acceptance. The Tribunal has expressly considered the contractual
   scheme and has recorded reasons as to why the claim for enhanced
   consultancy fees could not be sustained in the absence of a contractual
   provision permitting such escalation.

8. In these circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere
   with the finding of the learned Single Judge affirming the rejection of
   the Appellant‟s claim for enhancement of consultancy fees.

ISSUE II- Rejection of Appellant‟s claims arising out of prolongation
of the projects:

1. The next set of claims urged by the Appellant relates to
   compensation allegedly payable on account of the prolongation of the
   consultancy services beyond the originally contemplated period of the
   projects.

2. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the projects
   were considerably delayed and that the Appellant was compelled to
   continue providing consultancy services for extended periods.
   According to the Appellant, such prolongation resulted in additional
   deployment of personnel, administrative expenses and operational
   costs, for which the Appellant was entitled to appropriate
   compensation.

3. The Arbitral Tribunal examined the contractual framework
   governing extension of time and the financial consequences thereof. In
   particular, the Tribunal considered the provisions contained in Article
   24 of the Consultancy Agreements, including Notes 1 and 5, which Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 31 of 42 11:49:55 govern extensions and their financial consequences. The same is
   reproduced as under-

ARTICLE 24 PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE

                          The project shall be completed within the period as indicated below:-

a) Go ahead for preparation of DPR 1 week*
b) Preparation and submission of DPR (final) 12 weeks
(including up dating the deficiency of CPR
c) Approval of DPR by the ONWER 3 weeks*
d) Go ahead for execution 1 weeks*
e) Preparation of tender documents and 2 weeks
Submission of soft copy (floppy) and
Twenty Five (25) hard copies thereof.
f) Evaluation of quoted tender documents 3 weeks
and Submission of recommendations
g) Execution of the project 20-30 months
Depending on Project Note : The periods marked with "*" are approximate periods.
Note 1:- The exact time for execution of the project will be as per
contract (s) concluded with contractor (s) i.e. Builder and it shall be noted by
the consultant that in case of any delay in completion of the project for
whatsoever reasons, the consultant shall not be relieved of his responsibilities
after the period given against execution of project and shall not be entitled for
any compensation /extra charges on this account as consultant's agreement
shall accordingly deemed to have been extended with "NIL" financial effect.
The rates quoted in financial proposal shall be final and nothing extra on this
account shall be payable to the consultant.

Note 2:- The action for advertising the works in public shall be taken by
DGMAP sufficiently in advance during DPR stage so that tenders could be
issued at the earliest after Approval of DPR. Therefore, draft advertisements
for various works shall be submitted by the consultant well in advance of
submission of DPR.

Note 3:- The remuneration for the consultancy services shall also include
Rebidding, Reevaluation of contract documents, preparation of tender with
revised / changed drawings and specifications during re-tendering stage. No
additional payment on account of the same shall be admissible.
Note 4:- In case of non deployment of required staff even after one month
of serving of the notice by the PM the rate of recovery shall be as under:

Technical Staff Recovery per
month (Rs.)
Resident Engineer 40,000/-
Civil Engineer 24,000/- Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 32 of 42 11:49:55 Electrical Engineer 24,000/-
Quality Assurance & Quality Control 24,000/-
Engineer
Billing Engineer 20,000/-
Assistance Civil Engineer 20,000/-
Asst Electrical Engineer 20,000/-
Computer Operator 10,000/-
OR Double the amount of remuneration actually paid after employment by the PM
In terms of clause 4 (b) of Appendix G whichever is higher. During the period
of one month for deficiency in service the recovery will be as mentioned in
table above. The decision of Acceptance officer for recovery on account of
deficiency/ non employment of technical staff shall be final and binding.
Note 5:- If the work is stopped or suspended for what so ever reason the
consultant may demobilize the team from the site, for such period after written
instruction from the PM. However the consultant shall have to mobilize his
team with in 15 days of recommencement of work after such stoppage /
suspension. No claim on account of such demobilization or remobilization
shall be admissible.

In case of failure of the consultant, to prepare and submit the DPR within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of go ahead for preparation of DPR,
liquidated damage @ Rs. 10000/- per week of delay shall be recovered from
the consultant.

In case of failure of the consultant, to prepare submit tender documents within
a period of two weeks from the date of go ahead for execution, liquidated
damage @ Rs. 5000/- per week of delay shall be recovered from the
consultant.

In case of delay in evaluation of quoted tender document and
recommendations within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
tenders, liquidated damage @ Rs. 5000/· per week of delay shall be recovered
from the consultant.

1. Upon an analysis of the contractual clauses, the Tribunal
   observed that the Consultancy Agreements contemplated the
   possibility of extension of the project period and specifically
   addressed the financial implications of such extensions. The Tribunal
   noted that the contractual provisions distinguished between different
   categories of extensions and expressly stipulated circumstances in
   which the extension would have "nil financial effect" (Note 1).

2. The Tribunal further noted that the relevant contractual notes
   clearly indicated that extensions granted for administrative or Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 33 of 42 11:49:55 procedural reasons, or extensions necessitated due to circumstances
   not attributable to the Respondent, were not intended to result in
   additional financial liability on the part of the Respondent. On the
   basis of the contractual provisions and the evidence placed on record,
   the Tribunal concluded that the extensions granted in the present case
   fell within the category of extensions which did not entail any
   additional financial compensation.

3. The Tribunal also examined the evidentiary basis of the
   Appellant‟s claim relating to additional deployment of staff and found
   that the Appellant had not produced sufficient documentary material
   demonstrating that additional personnel had in fact been deployed for
   the extended period or that identifiable additional expenditure had
   been incurred on account of such deployment. Such claims were
   largely founded upon general assertions regarding increased costs
   rather than contemporaneous records substantiating the actual
   deployment of staff or the specific financial burden allegedly incurred
   during the extended period.

4. The Tribunal therefore held that the Appellant had failed to
   establish its entitlement to compensation for prolongation either on the
   basis of the contractual provisions or on the basis of evidence
   demonstrating actual expenditure.

5. The learned Single Judge, while examining the challenge under Section 34 of the Act, considered the reasoning adopted by the
   Tribunal and concluded that the Tribunal had undertaken a detailed
   examination of the contractual provisions as well as the evidence Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 34 of 42 11:49:55 placed before it.

6. The learned Single Judge held that the conclusions drawn by
   the Tribunal were based upon an interpretation of the contract that
   could not be said to be either arbitrary or perverse and further
   observed that the Tribunal had assessed the evidentiary material and
   had arrived at findings of fact which could not be re-appreciated in
   proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.

7. Having considered the reasoning of the Tribunal and the
   observations recorded in the Impugned Judgment, this Court is of the
   view that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge does not
   suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Section 37 of
   the Act.

8. The Tribunal has examined the contractual clauses governing
   extension of the project period and has concluded that the extensions
   granted in the present case did not carry any financial consequences.
   Such an interpretation of the contractual provisions falls squarely
   within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.

9. It is equally significant that the Tribunal has also returned a
   factual finding that the Appellant failed to substantiate the alleged
   additional expenditure with adequate documentary evidence. Findings
   of fact recorded by an arbitral tribunal, particularly those based upon
   appreciation of evidence, are not liable to be interfered with in
   appellate proceedings unless they are demonstrably perverse.

10. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 35 of 42 11:49:55 be characterized as perverse or unsupported by the material on record.
    Consequently, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to
    interfere with the rejection of the Appellant‟s claims relating to
    prolongation of the projects.

ISSUE III- FINDINGS IN RELATION TO VIZAG PROJECT
CLAIMS:

1. A separate set of claims raised by the Appellant pertained
   specifically to the Vizag project. On behalf of the Appellant, it was
   contended that it was entitled to certain additional payments arising
   out of the circumstances in which the project was executed and
   completed.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal examined the claims pertaining to the
   Vizag project independently and analyzed the contractual provisions
   governing the obligations of the parties in relation to project execution
   and completion. In particular, the Tribunal considered the contractual
   provisions dealing with demobilisation of the consultant‟s personnel
   in situations where the work stood suspended or stopped. Note 5
   appended to Article 24 of the Consultancy Agreement, as already
   reproduced above, specifically provides that where the work is
   stopped or suspended, the consultant may demobilise its team from
   the site upon written instructions of the Project Manager. The clause
   further stipulates that upon recommencement of the work, the
   consultant shall remobilise its team within fifteen days.

3. Significantly, the said clause expressly provides that no claim
   on account of such demobilisation or remobilisation shall be
   admissible. In view of the clear contractual stipulation barring such Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 36 of 42 11:49:55 claims, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant could not seek
   additional compensation on account of withdrawal or redeployment of
   its personnel during periods when the project work remained
   suspended.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant could
   not claim additional compensation for withdrawal or redeployment of
   personnel during suspension periods and accordingly rejected the
   claims in relation to the Vizag project.

5. The learned Single Judge, while examining the challenge under Section 34 of the Act, held that the findings recorded by the Tribunal
   were based upon a detailed examination of both the contractual
   provisions and the evidence placed on record and further observed that
   the Tribunal had provided cogent reasons for rejecting the claims and
   that the conclusions drawn could not be said to suffer from patent
   illegality or perversity.

6. Having considered the material placed before this Court, no
   ground is made out to hold that the approach adopted by the learned
   Single Judge suffers from any error warranting interference in
   appellate jurisdiction.

7. The interpretation of contractual provisions relating to
   demobilisation, as adopted by the Tribunal, represents a plausible
   interpretation of the contract. It is well settled that where the
   interpretation adopted by the arbitral tribunal is one of the possible
   views that can reasonably be taken on the basis of the contract, courts
   exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act ought not Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 37 of 42 11:49:55 to substitute their own interpretation in place of that adopted by the
   tribunal.

ISSUE IV- SETTING ASIDE OF ARBITRAL AWARD TO THE
LIMITED EXTENT OF CLAIM NOS.1 TO 3 IN OMP(COMM)
518/2023:

1. The next question that arises for consideration concerns the
   limited interference undertaken by the learned Single Judge in
   OMP(COMM) 518/2023, whereby the arbitral award was set aside
   only to the extent of Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and the parties were granted
   liberty to pursue fresh arbitral proceedings in respect of the said
   claims.

2. The learned Single Judge, while examining the arbitral award in
   relation to these claims, observed that the findings recorded by the
   Arbitral Tribunal did not adequately deal with certain aspects of the
   contractual framework governing the claims raised by the Appellant.
   In particular, the learned Single Judge noted that the reasoning
   contained in the arbitral award in relation to Claim Nos. 1 to 3 did not
   sufficiently address the contractual provisions and the material placed
   on record by the parties with respect to the entitlement claimed by the
   Appellant.

3. The learned Single Judge further observed that the arbitral
   award, insofar as it pertained to these claims, did not reflect a
   complete examination of the issues arising under the contract and
   therefore suffered from deficiencies in reasoning.

4. In view of these considerations, the learned Single Judge Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 38 of 42 11:49:55 concluded that the findings recorded in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 3
   could not be sustained in their existing form. However, instead of
   adjudicating the claims on merits, the learned Single Judge adopted
   the course of setting aside the award to the limited extent of the said
   claims and leaving it open to the parties to pursue fresh arbitral
   proceedings in accordance with law.

5. It is well settled that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and
   is not required to undertake an adjudication on the merits of the
   claims. Where the court finds that the award suffers from patent
   illegality or that the reasoning is insufficient to sustain the conclusions
   reached, the court is empowered to set aside the award to the extent
   necessary.

6. The course adopted by the learned Single Judge in the present
   case reflects an exercise of such limited jurisdiction. The learned
   Single Judge has neither undertaken an independent adjudication of
   the claims nor substituted the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal with
   his own conclusions. Instead, the learned Single Judge has confined
   the interference to the limited extent considered necessary and has left
   the substantive adjudication of the claims to the arbitral process itself.

7. This approach is consistent with the scheme of the Act, which
   places primary responsibility for adjudication of contractual disputes
   upon arbitral tribunals rather than courts.

8. Having examined the reasoning contained in the Impugned
   Judgment, this Court does not find any infirmity in the approach Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 39 of 42 11:49:55 adopted by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the arbitral award
   only to the limited extent of Claim Nos. 1 to 3. The Appellant has not
   demonstrated that the course adopted by the learned Single Judge is
   contrary to the provisions of the Act or that it results in any manifest
   injustice to either of the parties.

9. On the contrary, the limited nature of the interference ensures
   that the parties retain the opportunity to have the disputed claims
   examined afresh in arbitral proceedings in accordance with the
   contractual framework governing their relationship.

10. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
    decision of the learned Single Judge to set aside the award to the
    limited extent of Claim Nos. 1 to 3 in OMP(COMM) 518/2023 does
    not warrant interference in the present appeals.

Scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996:

1. Before concluding, it is necessary to reiterate the limited scope
   of appellate interference available under Section 37 of the Act.

2. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is
   narrower than the jurisdiction exercised by the court under Section 34 of the Act. An appellate court is not expected to reassess the merits of
   the arbitral award or undertake a fresh evaluation of the contractual
   provisions merely because another view of the matter may appear
   possible.

3. The role of the appellate court is confined to examining whether
   the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 has applied the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 40 of 42 11:49:55 correct legal principles and whether the impugned judgment suffers
   from any manifest error warranting interference. Where the court
   under Section 34 has considered the arbitral award within the
   framework of the statutory grounds available for setting aside an
   award and has arrived at a reasoned conclusion, the appellate court
   would ordinarily refrain from disturbing such findings.

4. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has examined the
   arbitral awards in considerable detail and has applied the well-
   established principles governing interference with arbitral awards.
   Except to the limited extent discussed earlier, the learned Single Judge
   found no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Arbitral
   Tribunal.

5. Upon an independent examination of the Impugned Judgment,
   this Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge
   is consistent with the settled principles governing challenges to
   arbitral awards.

6. The conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge are
   supported by reasons and do not disclose any manifest error of law or
   jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION:

1. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that the Appellant has failed to make out any case for interference with the Impugned Judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 41 of 42 11:49:55 78. The findings recorded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in
respect of the claims raised by the Appellant have been examined by
the learned Single Judge within the limited parameters of Section 34 of the Act. No infirmity has been demonstrated which would justify
interference with the conclusions reached in the Impugned Judgment.

1. The limited interference undertaken by the learned Single Judge
   in relation to Claim Nos. 1 to 3 in OMP(COMM) 518/2023 is also
   found to be in accordance with the scheme of the Act and does not call
   for any modification by this Court.

2. Accordingly, the present Appeals are dismissed, subject to the
   clarification that the parties shall remain at liberty to pursue such
   remedies as may be available to them in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 3
   in accordance with law.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MARCH 24, 2026
jai/pal Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters Page 42 of 42 11:49:55