MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2016 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vidhi Jain and Mr. Madhur Mittal, Advocates. versus NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Tewari and Mr. Utkarsh Trivedi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 11.03.20162 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The challenge in the present proceedings is directed primarily against the findings recorded in the Impugned Award, in particular those relating to the adjudication of Claims A to E. The Petitioner 1 A&C Act 2 Impugned Award Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2016 Page 1 of 17 BHATIA Signing Date:27.02.2026 15:33:40 seeks to assail the conclusions arrived at by the learned Arbitrator under these heads. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award pertaining to Claims A to E is reproduced hereunder: “Claims A to E The main question before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether the claimant is entitled to be paid @ Rs.4273 per line on account of it having completed the supplies by 28" February 1995 or it is entitled to be paid @ Rs.4145 per line due to its having not completed the supplies by 28th February 1995 because of GD Tubes having been supplied only in July, 1995. The question is as to whether by non-supply of GD tubes of the value of Rs.19,15,552 out of the total contract of more than Rs.39 crore, the supplies were not comple