DEEPAK BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED vs M/S ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 12.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.02.2026 + FAO (COMM) 185/2024 & CM APPL. 54337/2024 DEEPAK BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Chugh & Mr. Mayank Kaushik, Advs. versus M/S ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debarshi Bhadra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal under Section 371 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962, the Appellant assails the correctness of the judgment dated 16.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’], passed in ARBTN-248/18, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the Petition filed by the Respondent under Section 343 of the A&C Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘Section 34 Petition’] and set aside the Arbitral Award dated 13.07.2018 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Award’] passed by the learned Sole 1 Section 37 2 A&C Act 3 Section 34 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:20.02.2026 FAO (COMM) 185/2024 Page 1 of 18 13:16:59 Arbitrator. 2. The learned District Judge, by way of the Impugned Order, has held that the Award suffers from patent illegality on account of the claims being barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 19634. 3. Accordingly, the principal issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned District Judge was justified in interfering with the Award under Section 34 on the ground of limitation, particularly in the absence of a timely objection before the learned Arbitrator. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, the relevant facts, in brief, are r