M/S SYNERGY CONSULTANTS vs M/S T.D. WILLIAMSON INDIA PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 04.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 10.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 10.03.2026 + FAO(OS)(COMM) 153/2024 M/S SYNERGY CONSULTANTS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Mr. Sahil Nindawat & Mr Prarabdh Tiwari, Advs. versus M/S T.D. WILLIAMSON INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Fereshte D Sethna, Mr. Mohit Tiwari & Mr. Devansh Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of order dated 23.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) 451/2019 whereby the objections preferred by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] were dismissed and the arbitral award dated 11.05.2019 was upheld. 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the learned Single Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, committed any error warranting interference under Section 37 of the Act in declining to set aside the arbitral award dated 11.05.2019, particularly insofar as the learned Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:10.03.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM)153/2024 Page 1 of 22 15:27:38 Sole Arbitrator rejected the Appellant‟s claim for commission in respect of the ONGC Hazira 42 HTPCS (Hot Tapping Project) and declined the claim for pre-suit interest. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, the relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are required to be noticed. 4. The Appellant is a proprietorship firm engaged in provi