NHPC LTD vs V3S INFRATRECH LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15.05.2025. + FAO(OS)(COMM) 91/2025, CM APPL. 29706/2025 (For Exemption), CM APPL. 29707/2025 (For Exemption) & CM APPL. 29708/2025 (For Stay) NHPC LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Advocate. versus V3S INFRATRECH LTD. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (ORAL) HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 is preferred against the judgment dated 24.03.20252 in O.M.P. (COMM) 483/2024 titled as NHPC Ltd. vs. V3S Infratech Ltd. passed by the Ld. Single Judge. By the said Judgment, the Ld. Single Judge has held that the initial filing under Section 34 of the A&C Act was non-est, as the same was filed without even the Arbitral Award being a part of the papers that were filed. 2. While so rendering the impugned Judgment, the Ld. Single Judge has referred to and relied upon the relevant paragraphs of the full-bench 1 A&C Act 2 Impugned Judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (COMM) 91/2025 Page 1 of 8 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.05.2025 17:00:24 Judgment of this Court in the case of Pragati Construction v. Union of India3. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, though has raised numerous grounds in the appeal, the oral arguments were limited to the aspect of whether a mistake on the part of the counsel could be held against the Appellant, leading to the dismissal of its challenge to the Arbitral Award. 4. The grounds as articulated in the arguments are set out at page no. 46 of the present appeal, which are reproduced as follows:- “A Party Ought Not to Suffer for the Inaction or Omission of its Advocat