An award over the Commonwealth Games athletic track survives eleven years of challenge under Section 34
Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected the CPWD's objections to the arbitrator's impartiality, to the merits of three claims, and to the scope of the reference.
The track was laid for the Commonwealth Games of 2010. The arbitral award came in July 2015. The Union of India, through the Central Public Works Department, challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and on 12 October 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that none of the three lines of attack — on the arbitrator, on the merits and on the scope of the reference — crossed the threshold that Section 34 sets.
The contract
The dispute arises out of a composite tender floated for providing and laying an IAAF-approved synthetic athletic track surface at five venues in Delhi: the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Thyagraj Stadium, Chhattarsal Stadium, the Commonwealth Games Village and Delhi University. These proceedings concern the agreement for the work at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium.
The contractor submitted its bid on 24 August 2009, and when the financial bid was opened five days later it had quoted Rs 33.29 crore for the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium and Rs 72.80 crore as the composite figure for all five venues. The CPWD considered the rates substantially on the higher side and constituted a committee to scrutinise them and determine the justified cost of the work.
The challenge to the arbitrator
The first objection went to the independence and impartiality of the sole arbitrator under Section 12 of the Act. The Court rejected it, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any circumstance giving rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality within the meaning of that provision. An objection of this kind has to be grounded in circumstances, not in dissatisfaction with the result.
What the Tribunal had actually awarded
The award was not a single figure but a set of findings claim by claim. On the first claim the Tribunal rejected one head because the measurements had already been jointly reconciled and accepted, awarded a small sum on a second after examining the items and rates, and on the third held that reduced rates could not have been applied without prior notice to the contractor under Clauses 12.2 and 12.3.
The third claim concerned deductions from the final bill for four sand pits, testing charges for the synthetic surface and equipment, visits by the Field of Play consultant, trenching and refilling for pipes, and earthwork. The Tribunal upheld the deduction for the sand pits but found the rest excessive or unsupported by the agreement, and awarded about Rs 2.60 crore. On the fourth claim it held the deduction for removal of malba justified, but found the recovery of Rs 21,56,034 for the discus cage unjustified, because the cage had admittedly been provided and installed and no defect was pointed out until handing over; it directed the contractor to provide and install a new cage once the department issued the requisite notice within the stipulated period. Smaller sums followed on testing charges and on escalation during the extended period, the latter on the Tribunal's earlier finding that the delay was attributable to the department.
The challenge on the merits
Three findings were attacked: the Tribunal's conclusion on the requirement of notice under Clause 12.3 of the agreement, its conclusion on the number of visits required of the Field of Play consultant, and its treatment of the deduction towards the discus cage.
The Court held that each of those findings rests on the Tribunal's interpretation of the agreement and of the material on record. The petitioner had not been able to show that they are contrary to the terms of the agreement, or that the view taken by the Tribunal warrants interference within the limited scope available to a court under Section 34. Where a tribunal has read a contract and reached a possible view, a Section 34 court does not substitute its own.
Whether the arbitrator went outside the reference
The third objection was that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the reference by examining an undertaking dated 18 November 2010. The Court held the opposite: that undertaking was relied on by the petitioner itself as a defence to one of the claims, so its validity and effect formed part of the dispute requiring adjudication.
The Court distinguished the situation from one where such a document falls for consideration at the stage of reference, to determine whether any dispute survives for arbitration at all. Here the arbitration had already been invoked, and the arbitrator was only examining the defence the petitioner had itself set up and deciding whether it could defeat the claim. The objection was accordingly without merit.
Order
The Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned award of 9 July 2015 and declined to set it aside. The petition was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.