In M/s C.P. & Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (FAO(OS) (COMM) 186/2023, decided 2 November 2026), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court — Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain — allowed a Section 37 appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s dismissal of Section 34 objections to a 2018 arbitral award, and remitted the objections for fresh decision, holding that the specific contentions raised had simply never been considered.
The case in one view
| Case | M/s C.P. & Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., FAO(OS) (COMM) 186/2023 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Division Bench — Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain (reportable) |
| Decided | 2 November 2026 |
| Below | Section 34 petition dismissed by the Single Judge on 4 May 2023; award dated 28 September 2018 |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed; order of 4 May 2023 set aside; Section 34 objections remitted for fresh decision; no view on merits |
The contract and the claims
DMRC awarded the appellant a contract in 2008, valued at Rs 33,76,81,216.12, for architectural finishing works at seven elevated stations on the Inderlok–Mundka line of Delhi MRTS Phase-II. Disputes over delay, measurement and the final bill culminated in DMRC terminating the contract on 4 June 2010. In arbitration, the contractor raised 32 claims; the award of 28 September 2018 allowed 7, partly allowed 3 and rejected 22. The contractor’s Section 34 petition was dismissed on 4 May 2023, and the matter reached the Division Bench under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The objections that went unanswered
The appellant’s Section 34 petition had raised specific, claim-wise grounds: that termination was effected without the two-day further notice required by clauses 11.4.2(b), (g) and (i) of the General Conditions of Contract; that the performance bank guarantee was forfeited without proof of loss; that extra-item and false-ceiling claims were wrongly rejected; that liquidated damages were wrongly recovered; and that costs under Sections 31(8) and 31A were wrongly denied. The Single Judge’s judgment, the Bench found, dealt with none of these in substance — it reproduced the award’s reasoning and declared the objections consistent with the contract.
From the judgment: “the specific contentions raised by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act were not considered” — and “the failure to consider the specific objections raised by the appellant violates the principles of natural justice.”
Why remand, not decision
The Bench was careful about institutional boundaries. A Section 37 court reviews whether the Section 34 court stayed within its statutory limits; it is a review of a review, not a third innings on merits. Where the Section 34 court never actually adjudicated the objections, there is no decision whose conformity with Section 34 can be tested. The only course consistent with the scheme — drawn from the line of authority including NHAI v. M. Hakeem, Fiza Developers, HUDA v. Mehta Construction and Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation v. Samir Narain Bhojwani — was to remit the objections for fresh consideration, expressly leaving all contentions open.
The anatomy of a proper Section 34 adjudication
What both sides should take away
For award debtors, the decision is a reminder that the narrowness of Section 34 is not a licence for summary disposal: the right to have objections actually considered is part of the process due, and its denial is itself a ground of appeal. For award holders, the sobering arithmetic: an award of September 2018 now returns to the Section 34 queue in late 2026, with enforcement correspondingly deferred. Parties defending awards should therefore assist the Section 34 court to deal with each objection expressly — a judgment that answers every ground is the fastest road to finality. The decision will be of particular interest to contractors and public-sector employers litigating GCC-based terminations, where notice clauses and guarantee forfeitures recur as grounds of challenge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the dispute about?
A 2008 DMRC contract worth about Rs 33.77 crore for architectural finishing works at seven elevated stations on the Inderlok–Mundka line. After disputes over delay, measurement and the final bill, DMRC terminated the contract in June 2010. Of 32 claims raised in arbitration, the award of 28 September 2018 allowed 7, partly allowed 3 and rejected 22.
Why did the Division Bench interfere at the Section 37 stage?
Because the Section 34 court had not decided the challenge at all in substance. The Single Judge reproduced the award's reasoning and declared the objections consistent with the contract, without engaging with the claim-wise contentions — on the termination notice under the GCC, forfeiture of the performance guarantee without proof of loss, rejected claims, liquidated damages and costs. That failure violated natural justice.
Did the court decide whether the award was right or wrong?
No. The Bench expressly declined to touch the merits of any claim. Since the objections were never addressed by the Section 34 court, there was nothing for the appellate court to review within Section 34's limits — so the proper course was remand, not substitution of its own views.
What is the practical lesson for award challenges?
Frame Section 34 objections claim-wise and insist on claim-wise adjudication. A judgment that merely summarises the award and pronounces it plausible is vulnerable in appeal — but equally, the remedy will usually be a remand for fresh consideration, adding years to the proceedings, as this case shows for a 2018 award.