PANKAJ MITTAL vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 11.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 27.08.2025 + FAO(OS) 60/2019 PANKAJ MITTAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. H.L Narula, Mrs. Rinku Narula, Mr. Anugrah Ekka, Mr. Kanishk Taneja, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J. 1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 05.12.2018 2 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. No. 691/2012, which was filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Judgment as well 1 A&C Act 2 Impugned Judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO(OS) 60/2019 Page 1 of 17 Signing Date:29.08.2025 12:35:16 as the Arbitral Award dated 22.03.2012 3 rendered by the learned Arbitrator, in respect of Claim No. 1 and Counter Claim No. 1. 2. At the outset, it needs to be stated that the learned Single Judge has affirmed the Award passed in favour of the Respondent, meaning thereby that this is an Appeal against two concurrent findings in favour of the Respondent. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant would challenge the Award on the following points: (a). The learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that no interest was claimed in the counter-claim and, while referring to the prayers as sought therein, would urge that the Award of interest, having not been specifical