Delhi High Court · 2026-02-05
M/S DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD vs ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NEW DELHI
- Citation / case number
- FAO (COMM)-132/2024 2026:DHC:931-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- M/S DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD
- Respondent
- ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NEW DELHI
Judgment text excerpt
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:19.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 05.02.2026 Judgement uploaded on: 05.02.2026 + FAO (COMM) 132/2024 M/S DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anupam Kishore Sinha, Mr. Pradeep K. Tiwari, Mr. Apoorv Jha, Mr. Sahitya Srivastava, Advs. versus ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankush Kapoor, Mr. Vishwadeep, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „A&C Act‟], the Appellant (Petitioner before the District Judge) assails the correctness of the order dated 25.01.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟], whereby the District Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:05.02.2026 FAO(COMM)132/2024 Page 1 of 23 15:34:23 A&C Act and upheld the Arbitral Award dated 24.04.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Award‟], passed by the learned Arbitrator. 2. Herein, the Appellant contends that the District Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the patent illegality apparent on the face of the Award, and, in the absence of any pleading or proof of loss by the Respondent, erroneously upheld the encashment of 50% of the Performance Security by the Respondent. 3. Accordingly, the core issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the findings of the Arbitrator are based on no evidence and are, therefore, perverse, thereby rendering the Award vitiated by p