Works-contract arbitrations are won and lost on contemporaneous records — and appeals against the resulting awards are lost on the standard of review. In FAO 187/2019, decided on 15 September 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Delhi Jal Board’s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the dismissal of its Section 34 objections to an award in favour of a sewer-line contractor. The judgment is a compact restatement of two propositions every government contractor and employer should internalise: the hindrance register can decide the delay question, and Section 37 review is narrower still than Section 34.
The dispute and its journey
The Delhi Jal Board engaged Digvijay Sanitations for laying a sewer line at a contract value of ₹75,42,803, to be completed in 15 months by 30 January 2003. Completion came on 26 December 2003 — some 11 months late. The contractor blamed departmental hindrances and claimed unpaid amounts; the Board blamed the contractor and made deductions. Arbitration was invoked in April 2008, and the award of 29 December 2009 went to the contractor. The Board’s objections under Section 34 were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and the matter reached the High Court under Section 37.
The evidentiary heart: the hindrance register
The arbitrator’s central finding was built on the hindrance register — the contemporaneous log maintained on site recording periods when work could not proceed and why. On that record, 312 of the 334 days of delay were attributable to departmental hindrances, not contractor fault. Justice Ohri treated the finding as exactly the kind of fact-determination that belongs to the arbitral tribunal: “a plausible view of the material on record”, which neither the Section 34 court nor the Section 37 court may displace with its own reading.
For contractors, the practice lesson precedes the litigation: insist on real-time hindrance entries, signed or acknowledged, covering site availability, drawings, approvals and payments. For employers, contest inaccurate entries when made — a register left uncontradicted for years becomes, as here, the spine of the award.
The double filter of Sections 34 and 37
Why this matters for Delhi’s public-works bar
Delhi Jal Board, PWD, DDA and municipal works contracts generate a steady flow of delay arbitrations, and this judgment consolidates the operating rules. Employers should recognise that objections built on re-arguing delay attribution — without demonstrating perversity, ignored evidence or a jurisdictional excess — face dismissal twice over, with interest on the award running throughout. Contractors holding favourable awards should resist the temptation to treat Section 34/37 proceedings casually: the deference doctrine protects findings anchored in record and reasoning, so the enforcement brief should foreground precisely those anchors. Both sides should account for time-value: an award of 2009 reaching final appellate affirmation in 2026 illustrates why security under Section 36(3) deposits and negotiated part-payments deserve early attention.
Core holdings: contemporaneous project records ground unassailable findings; exclusionary clauses are read against total work stoppages; and Section 37 adds a second filter, not a second hearing.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Award-challenge strategy depends on the award’s reasoning and the record in each arbitration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the underlying dispute?
A sewer-line contract awarded by the Delhi Jal Board for ₹75,42,803 with a 15-month completion period ending 30 January 2003. The work finished about 11 months late in December 2003; disputes over delay responsibility, non-payment and deductions went to arbitration in 2008, and the award of 29 December 2009 favoured the contractor.
Why did the delay findings survive challenge?
Because the arbitrator worked from the contemporaneous hindrance register maintained during execution, finding 312 of 334 days of delay justified by departmental hindrances. Findings of fact drawn from contemporaneous project records are quintessentially within the arbitrator’s domain and constitute a plausible view immune from re-appreciation.
What is the scope of a Section 37 appeal?
It is confined to verifying that the Section 34 court stayed within its own limited jurisdiction. The appellate court “cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award”; it asks only whether the Section 34 exercise exceeded the statutory grounds — a double filter against merits review.
Did the exclusionary clauses not bar the contractor’s claims?
The arbitrator read the standard phased-delivery clauses as not excusing “total, intermittent cessations of work”, and the court upheld that interpretation as one reasonably open on the contract — contract interpretation being primarily the arbitrator’s province.