UNION OF INDIA vs S K SHARMA

Judgment text excerpt

$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on : 05.05.2025 Judgment pronounced on :15 .07.2025 + O.M.P. (COMM) 142/2020 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Aarti Gupta, Mr. Saiyam Bhardwaj, Advs. versus S K SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Mr. Kanav Agarwal, Mr. Agnish Aditya, Mr. Sajal Awasthi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH JUDGMENT : JASMEET SINGH, J 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 11.05.2013 (“Impugned Award”) passed in Arbitration proceedings bearing No. ARB/RS/S.K.A/S.S/2010 titled M/s S.K. Sharma vs Union of India. FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITIONER 2. The respondent firm was awarded a works contract vide letter dated 13.09.2002 with the scheduled date of completion being 12.12.2003, however, the same could not be achieved within the stipulated timeline. Consequently, the time for completion of the work was extended from time to time without levy of any penalty, and the work was completed by the respondent on 31.03.2006. Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 142/2020 Page 1 of 29 By:MAYANK Signing Date:15.07.2025 19:23:11 3. The defect liability period expired on 30.09.2006 without any complaints raised by the petitioner. Following the expiry of the defect liability period, the respondent asked the petitioner to release the security deposit along with the full and final payment. In response, the petitioner prepared the final bill and called upon the respondent to sign it. However, the respondent signed the bill under protest, alleging that the final bill did not account for all the payments to which the respondent was entitled. Since there we