< Back

Case Analysis Ms Continental India Pvt Ltd vs General Manager, Northern Railways Administration & Ors 2026 DHC 3332

Synopsis

The decree holder filed an execution petition seeking enforcement of an arbitral award dated 1st May 2025. While the principal awarded amount had been paid, the costs awarded remained unpaid. The judgment debtors contended that the costs were not quantified in the award and that the decree holder could not, in execution proceedings, produce evidence to quantify costs (relying on H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.). The court distinguished the cited precedent, holding that in the present case, the tabulated statement of costs along with supporting invoices was placed on the arbitral record and formally taken on record by the tribunal. Therefore, the costs were deemed to have been awarded in the quantified amount. The court directed payment of ₹9,28,300/- (costs incurred in arbitral proceedings) within four weeks.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Judgment: 21st April 2026

Citation: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 285/2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 36 (execution of award); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 10 (execution petition), Section 151 (inherent powers); execution of costs awarded in arbitral award

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 36 (enforcement of arbitral award)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 10 (execution petition), Section 151 (inherent powers)

Key legal principles applied

Execution of costs awarded by arbitral tribunal: If the arbitral award grants costs but does not quantify them, the decree holder cannot, in execution proceedings, produce evidence to quantify the costs for the first time. The executing court cannot go behind the award or permit the decree holder to fill gaps by adducing fresh evidence.

Exception where costs were quantified in arbitral record: If the tabulated statement of costs and supporting invoices were placed before the arbitral tribunal and taken on record, and the tribunal subsequently awarded costs (even without explicitly referring to the quantification), the costs are deemed to have been awarded in the quantified amount. The decree holder can rely on the arbitral record in execution.

Distinction from H.P. Cotton Textile Mills: In that case, the cost statement was not before the tribunal at the time of the award, and no proof of payment was placed. In the present case, the cost statement and invoices were on the arbitral record and formally taken on record by the tribunal.

Relevant precedents relied upon

H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (decided 03.11.2023, Delhi High Court) – Execution for unquantified costs not permissible; court cannot go behind award or permit fresh evidence.

3. Basic Facts of the Case

The decree holder (M/S Continental India Pvt. Ltd.) obtained an arbitral award dated 1st May 2025 against the judgment debtors (Northern Railways Administration). The award granted a sum of ₹9,72,103/- with interest and also awarded “costs of the arbitration proceedings incurred by the Claimant to be paid by the Respondent/Railways” (para 15(iv)). The principal amount was paid, but the costs remained unpaid.

The decree holder claimed ₹16,33,800/- as total costs incurred across arbitral proceedings, Supreme Court proceedings, and Allahabad High Court proceedings. However, before the court, the decree holder confined the claim to ₹9,28,300/-, being only the costs incurred in the arbitral proceedings. Supporting invoices and a tabulated statement were placed on record.

The judgment debtors objected, relying on H.P. Cotton Textile Mills, arguing that the award did not quantify the costs, and therefore, the decree holder could not in execution produce evidence to quantify them.

The decree holder pointed out that the tabulated statement of costs and invoices were placed before the arbitral tribunal and formally taken on record by order dated 15th January 2024.

4. Issues Before the Court

Issue No. Issue 1 Whether the decree holder can, in execution proceedings, claim costs that were awarded by the arbitral tribunal but not quantified in the award? 2 Whether the presence of a tabulated cost statement and invoices on the arbitral record (taken on record by the tribunal) makes the costs quantified for the purpose of execution? 3 Whether the judgment in H.P. Cotton Textile Mills applies to the facts of the present case?

5. Ratio Decidendi (Principles Laid Down)

A. Costs awarded but not quantified in the award cannot be claimed in execution if the cost statement was not before the tribunal (paras 9-10)

The court distinguished H.P. Cotton Textile Mills. In that case, the cost statement was not before the tribunal at the time of passing the award, and the award was made subject to certification. No invoices or proof of payment were placed before the tribunal. Therefore, the decree holder could not fill that gap in execution.

B. Where the cost statement was on arbitral record, the costs are deemed quantified (paras 11-13)

In the present case, the decree holder had placed a tabulated calculation of costs incurred in the arbitration proceedings before the tribunal. By order dated 15th January 2024, the tribunal formally took the same on record, stating: “It is taken on record and would be considered at the appropriate stage.” The tribunal thereafter awarded costs. Although the award did not explicitly repeat the quantification, the court held that the costs incurred, as forming part of the arbitral record, “must necessarily be regarded as the costs awarded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.”

C. Execution court can look at arbitral record to ascertain quantified amount (para 13)

The court clarified that this is not a case of producing fresh evidence in execution. The evidence (invoices, tabulated statement) was already before the tribunal and formed part of the arbitral record. The executing court can peruse the arbitral record to ascertain the amount of costs awarded.

D. Direction to pay (paras 14-15)

The court directed the judgment debtors to pay ₹9,28,300/- (being the costs incurred in the arbitral proceedings) within four weeks.

6. New Legal Principles Established / What is New

This judgment does not create a new principle but clarifies the following:

An arbitral award that grants “costs of arbitration” without specifying the amount is not automatically unenforceable if the cost statement was placed before the tribunal and taken on record. The executing court can refer to the arbitral record to ascertain the quantified amount.
The distinction between “costs not quantified at all” and “costs quantified in the record but not in the award” is critical. In the former case, execution is not possible; in the latter, it is permissible.
The decree holder bears the burden of showing that the cost statement was before the tribunal and formed part of the arbitral record.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

On the judgment debtors’ objection (paras 6-9)

The court examined H.P. Cotton Textile Mills. The judgment debtor relied on paragraphs 10 and 11, which stated that where the cost statement was not before the tribunal and the award did not quantify costs, the decree holder cannot fill the gap in execution.

On the arbitral record (paras 11-12)

The court noted that the decree holder had placed the tabulated cost statement before the tribunal, and the tribunal had passed an order on 15th January 2024 taking it on record. The award then granted costs. The court held that this factual distinction made the present case different from H.P. Cotton Textile Mills.

On the quantification (para 13)

The court held that the costs incurred, as reflected in the arbitral record, “must necessarily be regarded as the costs awarded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.” The court did not require fresh evidence; it merely looked at the existing record.

On the relief (paras 14-15)

The court directed payment of ₹9,28,300/- within four weeks.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical analysis

Strengths of the judgment:

The judgment correctly distinguishes H.P. Cotton Textile Mills on facts. The presence of the cost statement on the arbitral record is a material distinction.
The court’s approach is practical: it prevents a decree holder from being denied costs simply because the tribunal did not repeat the quantification in the final award, when the quantification was already on record and the tribunal had awarded costs.
The judgment respects the principle that the executing court cannot go behind the award, but clarifies that looking at the arbitral record to ascertain what was awarded is not “going behind” – it is understanding the award.

Potential weaknesses or unresolved issues:

The judgment does not discuss whether the tribunal’s order dated 15th January 2024 (“taken on record and would be considered at the appropriate stage”) constitutes a determination that the claimed costs are reasonable. The tribunal might have intended to assess reasonableness later. The court assumed that the act of taking on record meant acceptance of the quantification.
The judgment does not address the possibility that the judgment debtors could have contested the reasonableness of the costs before the tribunal. If they did not, they cannot do so in execution.

Practical significance:

This judgment will be cited by decree holders seeking to enforce cost awards where the cost statement was placed before the tribunal but not explicitly quantified in the award. It also serves as a warning to judgment debtors that they must contest the quantification of costs before the tribunal, not wait for execution.

Final outcome

The execution petition was allowed in part. The judgment debtors were directed to pay ₹9,28,300/- (costs incurred in the arbitral proceedings) to the decree holder within four weeks. The petition was disposed of.

9. Use in Court (Practical Application)

Decree holder seeking execution of costs awarded in arbitral award – If the award grants costs but does not specify the amount, the decree holder must demonstrate that a cost statement (with supporting invoices) was placed before the arbitral tribunal and taken on record. The executing court can then treat the costs as quantified. Cite this judgment.
Judgment debtor opposing execution of unquantified costs – The judgment debtor can argue that if no cost statement was placed before the tribunal, the decree holder cannot produce evidence for the first time in execution. Rely on H.P. Cotton Textile Mills. Distinguish this case on the ground that here the cost statement was on the arbitral record.
Court determining enforceability of cost award – The court should first examine the arbitral record to see whether the cost statement was before the tribunal. If yes, and the tribunal awarded costs, the costs are enforceable. If not, the execution petition for costs must be dismissed.

10. Court Lines

Para 9 (distinction from H.P. Cotton Textile Mills):

“As is manifest, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Judgement Debtors was premised on the fact that the costs had not been quantified, which position persisted owing to the failure of the parties to adduce the requisite proof; consequently, in execution proceedings, the Court, being precluded from going behind the Award or permitting the production of additional evidence to cure such deficiencies and enable subsequent quantification of costs, resulted in the rejection of the Petition. The aforesaid factual position stands in clear variance with the factual matrix obtaining in the present case.”

Para 11 (cost statement taken on record):

“In the present case, the tabulated statement of costs, along with the supporting invoices, was duly placed on the arbitral record and came to be formally taken on record by virtue of the Order dated 15.01.2024.”

Para 13 (costs deemed awarded):

“Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the costs incurred by the Decree Holder, as forming part of the arbitral record as well as the record of the present petition, must necessarily be regarded as the costs awarded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.”

Para 14 (payment directed):

“In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of ₹9,28,300/- is required to be paid to the Decree Holder in furtherance of the Award dated 01.05.2025, in respect of which execution has been sought.”

11. Legal Strategy Insight

For a decree holder seeking execution of costs:

First, before filing the execution petition, obtain the complete arbitral record, including any interim orders where cost statements were filed and taken on record. If the award grants costs but does not quantify, attach the cost statement and the tribunal’s order taking it on record. Cite this judgment to argue that the costs are deemed quantified.

Second, in the execution petition, specifically plead that the cost statement was before the tribunal. Annex the relevant pages of the arbitral record. Do not claim costs that were not incurred in the arbitral proceedings (e.g., costs of higher court proceedings) unless separately awarded.

Third, if the judgment debtor objects, distinguish H.P. Cotton Textile Mills on facts: in that case, no cost statement was before the tribunal; here, it was.

For a judgment debtor opposing execution of costs:

First, examine the arbitral award. If the award does not mention any quantified amount for costs, argue that the award is unenforceable for lack of certainty. Cite H.P. Cotton Textile Mills.

Second, examine whether the cost statement was actually before the tribunal. If the decree holder cannot prove that it was, argue that the execution court cannot permit fresh evidence. If the cost statement was before the tribunal but the tribunal did not award costs specifically (i.e., the award only says “costs of arbitration” without reference to the statement), argue that the tribunal did not adopt the quantification; it left it open. The decree holder should have sought clarification from the tribunal under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.

Third, if the cost statement was on record, argue that the tribunal still had to assess reasonableness. The decree holder cannot assume that the claimed amount is automatically awarded. The judgment in this case did not address reasonableness, so it remains a potential ground for objection.