Synopsis

The petitioner (contractor) was awarded a work order for building repair and painting valued at ₹48 lakhs. after receiving payments of ₹49.19 lakhs against five running account bills, the contractor claimed a final bill of ₹2.58 crores for alleged additional work. the arbitrator rejected the claim, noting the staggering amount and lack of evidence (no joint measurement, no prior approval, no tax invoices). the contractor also delayed work, deployed insufficient labour, and failed to insure workers. the high court dismissed the section 34 petition, holding that the arbitrator’s findings were based on evidence, not perverse, and that the court cannot reappreciate evidence under section 34.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

O.m.p. (comm) 448/2024

Nandini enterprising (petitioner) vs. Rajasthan co operative group housing society ltd and anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice avneesh jhingan

Reserved on: 19th may, 2026; pronounced on: 25th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 34 (setting aside arbitral award on grounds of patent illegality, perversity, public policy)

• Indian contract act, 1872 – section 73 (compensation for breach)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an arbitral award rejecting a contractor’s claim for a final bill of ₹2.58 crore

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.