CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs M/S DEEN DAYAL

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.11.2025 + FAO (COMM) 107/2024 & CM APPL. 33366/2024 CM APPL. 33369/2024 CM APPL. 11706/2025 CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION .....Appellant versus M/S DEEN DAYAL .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Mr. Priyanshu Tyagi and Mr. Rithvik Mathur, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. & VINOD KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal has been filed with the following prayers: “a. Allow the present Appeal and set aside the Impugned Judgment dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRADEEP FAO (COMM) 107/2024 Page 1 of 24 SHARMA Signing Date:13.11.2025 16:13:56 OMP (COMM) No.15/2023 as well as the Arbitral Award dt. 01.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator; and b. Pass such other or further orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Before delving into the merits of the matter it is pertinent to give a factual background surrounding the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 07.02.2024 of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) (Digital -04) South, Saket Courts, New Delhi had dismissed the Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’, hereinafter). The appellant had sought setting aside of the arbitral award dated 01.02.2023 whereby, Claim Nos.1, 2 and 5 of the respondent/contractor were allowed and Claim Nos.3, 4 and 6 were rejected. The learned District Judge while considering the appeal had noted that the appeal was filed within the limitation period under