In M/s Winner Construction Pvt. Ltd v. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (O.M.P. (COMM) 13/2015, decided 3 November 2026), the Delhi High Court dismissed a contractor's challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to an award of 28 September 2015 arising from the construction of an office building at Azadpur. Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the contract's interest clause barred the claim for interest on the delayed final bill, that the contractor had failed to prove the delay was attributable to the employer, and that the Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator.
The case in one view
| Case | M/s Winner Construction Pvt. Ltd v. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, O.M.P. (COMM) 13/2015 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Om Prakash Shukla |
| Decided | 3 November 2026 (reserved 10 September 2026) |
| Award | Sole arbitrator (Justice S.K. Aggarwal, Retd.), 28 September 2015 |
| Provisions | Sections 34, 31(7) and 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 55, Contract Act 1872 |
| Outcome | Petition dismissed; award upheld; no costs |
A familiar construction story
The contract, awarded on 30 October 2004, was for a new office building at NFM, Azadpur. Completion was due on 13 November 2005; the work finished on 30 November 2006, with time extended without compensation. The Engineer-in-Charge prepared the final bill, and final payment came on 16 January 2009. Winner then claimed about Rs 1.75 crore across seven heads — price escalation, interest on the delayed final bill, and establishment costs for the extended period — while APMC counter-claimed about Rs 1.5 crore. The sole arbitrator\'s 2015 award allowed two comparatively modest claims (about Rs 22.4 lakh and Rs 2.3 lakh) with interest and rejected the rest, on both sides. Winner alone challenged the award.
The three battlegrounds
Interest on the final bill
The Court held Clause 7 of the general conditions governed: where the contractor fails to submit the final bill and the Engineer-in-Charge prepares it, no interest runs on the delay. The arbitrator\'s omission to separately discuss Clause 9 did not go to the root of the award.
Escalation and extended establishment
These claims presupposed that the employer caused the delay. Winner\'s nine letters and the compensation-free extension of time did not prove breach by APMC — attribution, the foundation of every prolongation claim, was never established.
Interest from completion
The claim for interest from 30 November 2006 under Section 31(7) failed for want of any contractual or legal basis once the substantive claims fell.
The standard of review did the rest
The Court applied the patent-illegality threshold as restated in Ramesh Kumar Jain v. BALCO (2025), with Hindustan Construction (2024) and Shree Ganesh Petroleum (2022) among the authorities, and reiterated the boundary in two sentences that decide most Section 34 petitions: “the Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator,” and on the record here, “this Court does not find that the learned Arbitrator has disregarded any vital evidence or contractual provision.” An arbitrator\'s plausible reading of interlocking contract clauses, and a finding on delay attribution grounded in the correspondence, are precisely the kind of determinations the 1996 Act insulates from second-guessing. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Practice pointers for contractors: prolongation claims live or die on contemporaneous attribution. Hindrance registers, site instructions, recorded reasons for each extension of time, and protest letters that identify the employer\'s specific defaults are what prove that delay belongs to the other side — a compensation-free extension accepted without protest points the other way. On interest, the general conditions usually contain a complete code: a clause that disables interest where the employer prepares the bill after the contractor\'s default will be enforced as written, and Section 31(7) cannot be used to write it out of the contract. Finally, the timeline speaks for itself — a 2004 contract, a 2015 award and a 2026 decision on the challenge. Parties pricing settlement offers in construction arbitration should price that decade in.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the dispute about?
APMC awarded Winner Construction a contract in October 2004 to build a new office building at NFM, Azadpur. Work due in November 2005 was completed in November 2006, with time extended without compensation. Winner later claimed about Rs 1.75 crore — escalation, interest on the delayed final bill and extended-period establishment costs; APMC counter-claimed about Rs 1.5 crore.
What had the arbitrator awarded?
By award dated 28 September 2015, the sole arbitrator allowed two claims of about Rs 22.4 lakh and Rs 2.3 lakh with interest, and rejected the larger claims — including Rs 35.4 lakh of interest on the final bill and the escalation and establishment claims. Winner challenged the rejections under Section 34.
Why did the interest claim on the final bill fail?
Because of the contract itself: Clause 7 of the general conditions barred interest where the Engineer-in-Charge prepared the bill after the contractor failed to submit it, which is what happened. The arbitrator's omission to separately discuss Clause 9 was held not to go to the root of the award.
What standard did the Court apply to the challenge?
The patent-illegality standard as restated in Ramesh Kumar Jain v. BALCO (2025), with Hindustan Construction (2024) and Shree Ganesh Petroleum (2022) among the authorities. The Court stressed it does not sit in appeal over the arbitrator's findings and found no disregard of vital evidence or contractual provisions.