Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge’s characterisation of the arbitral award as “hypothetical” reflected non-application of mind.

menu_bar
Corporate Law
Home > ARBITRATION > High Courts > Madras High Court…
Madras High Court Restores Arbitral Award, Says District Judge Erred In Calling It ‘Hypothetical’
By – Shivani PSUpdate: 2026-06-27 09:35 GMT
Madras High Court Restores Arbitral Award, Says District Judge Erred In Calling It Hypothetical
facebook icontwitter iconlinkedin icontubmlr iconpinterest icon
whatsapp icon
The Madras High Court at Madurai has recently set aside an order of the Madurai Principal District Judge insofar as it annulled an arbitral award granting ₹14.04 lakh as an early completion bonus to a contractor in a dispute with the Union of India over the construction of a Kendriya Vidyalaya school building at Sivagangai.

The bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge’s characterisation of the arbitral award as “hypothetical” reflected non-application of mind.

Restoring the award, the court observed that the arbitrator had taken a plausible view, based on documentary evidence, that had the Union of India supplied cement, steel, structural drawings, and the colour scheme in time, the contractor would have completed the work 92 days in advance and earned the contractual bonus.

The bench observed, “It was not a hypothetical conclusion as concluded by the learned Principal District Judge. In order to arrive at the conclusion, he referred to page no.4 of CSF as well as Ex.C6. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Principal District Judge that it is a hypothetical conclusion and therefore, requires interference, shows non-application of mind by the learned Principal District Judge.”

The dispute arose from a July 15, 2008 contract awarded by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to G. Selvam for the construction of a Kendriya Vidyalaya school building at Sivagangai at a tender value of about ₹4.68 crore.

The work was to commence on July 22, 2008 and be completed within a year.

Clause 2A of the contract entitled the contractor to an early completion bonus at the rate of 1% of the tendered value per month, computed on a per-day basis, subject to a maximum of 5%.

Although the work was ultimately completed on November 30, 2009, beyond the stipulated completion date, Selvam claimed that CPWD’s failure to supply cement, steel, structural drawings and the colour scheme in time had delayed the work.

He contended that, but for those delays, he would have completed the project ahead of schedule and become eligible for the contractual bonus. The arbitrator ultimately found that the work would have been completed 92 days in advance.

Invoking the arbitration clause, Selvam raised eleven claims before the arbitral tribunal.

By an award dated February 4, 2013, the arbitrator directed the Union of India to pay ₹20.51 lakh with simple interest at 10% per annum from April 24, 2011, the date on which arbitration was invoked.

This included ₹14.04 lakh towards the early completion bonus after the arbitrator found that, but for delays attributable to CPWD, the work would have been completed 92 days in advance.

The Union of India challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Principal District Judge, Madurai.

By an order dated January 29, 2025, the District Judge upheld the award in respect of Claims 2 to 11, but set aside the award on Claim No.1 relating to the bonus, holding that it was based on a hypothetical conclusion.

Aggrieved, Selvam approached the high court under Section 37 of the Act.

Before the high court, Selvam relied on CPWD’s own records to show delays in the supply of cement, steel, structural drawings and the colour scheme.

The Union of India contended that the structural drawings had been supplied in stages and that the contractor had completed the work with a delay of 101 days.

The court examined records detailing the hindrances faced during execution, the department’s assessment of delay and correspondence exchanged between the parties.

It held that the records showed the site was handed over only on August 22, 2008 and that CPWD’s own records recognised 182 days of justified hindrance arising from delays in supplying cement, steel, structural drawings and the colour scheme.

Reiterating the limited scope of judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court held that an arbitrator may adopt “honest guesswork” or a rough-and-ready methodology in engineering contracts where precise quantification is difficult.

Since CPWD’s delay stood proved on record, interference with the award was unwarranted, it said.

It observed, “An arbitrator may adopt an “honest guesswork” or a rough-and-ready methodology in engineering contracts where precise quantification is difficult. When the delay on the part of the respondent stands proved by virtue of Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, the learned Appellate Judge erred in interference with the same.”

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the January 29, 2025 order insofar as it interfered with the award.

For Appellant (G. Selvam): Advocate S. Sukumar for M/s APN Law Associates.

For Respondent (Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division, Central PWD, Madurai): Deputy Solicitor General of India. K. Govindarajan.

Tags:
Justice V Lakshminarayanan Section 37 of the A&C Act Madras HC
Case Title : G. Selvam v. Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division, Central PWD, Madurai
Case Number : Arb. Appeal (MD) No.58 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 161
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Similar News
Calcutta High Court Upholds Setting Aside of ₹19.68 Crore Arbitral Award Against SAIL Over Demurrage Claim
Calcutta High Court Upholds Setting Aside of ₹19.68 Crore Arbitral Award Against SAIL Over Demurrage Claim
2026-06-26 06:19 GMT
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹32.79 Crore Arbitral Award To Adani Enterprises In Machhakata Coal Block Dispute
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹32.79 Crore Arbitral Award To Adani Enterprises In Machhakata Coal Block Dispute
2026-06-25 12:52 GMT
Delhi High Court Restrains NCERT From Invoking ₹6.09 Crore Bank Guarantee Against Paper Supplier
Delhi High Court Restrains NCERT From Invoking ₹6.09 Crore Bank Guarantee Against Paper Supplier
2026-06-25 06:26 GMT
Madras High Court Allows Telecom Contractor To Bid In Fresh BSNL Tender Pending Arbitration
Madras High Court Allows Telecom Contractor To Bid In Fresh BSNL Tender Pending Arbitration
2026-06-25 05:01 GMT
Telangana High Court Refers Cinepolis-Sree Thirumala Dispute To Arbitration, Appoints Former Acting CJ
Telangana High Court Refers Cinepolis-Sree Thirumala Dispute To Arbitration, Appoints Former Acting CJ
2026-06-24 14:36 GMT
Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Award, Finds No Bar To Arbitration After Partial Settlement Of Insurance Claim
Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Award, Finds No Bar To Arbitration After Partial Settlement Of Insurance Claim
2026-06-24 13:56 GMT
Madras High Court Stays Release Of Dileep-Starrer Neekkam Over Financial Dispute
Madras High Court Stays Release Of Dileep-Starrer ‘Neekkam’ Over Financial Dispute
2026-06-24 13:32 GMT
Calcutta High Court Refers ₹38 Crore Railway Contract Dispute To Arbitration, Says No Claim Certificate No Bar
Calcutta High Court Refers ₹38 Crore Railway Contract Dispute To Arbitration, Says No Claim Certificate No Bar
2026-06-24 12:42 GMT
MP High Court Appoints Arbitrator, Says Party Cannot Oppose Arbitration After Conceding To It In Similar Disputes
MP High Court Appoints Arbitrator, Says Party Cannot Oppose Arbitration After Conceding To It In Similar Disputes
2026-06-23 13:46 GMT
Patna High Court Refers Nalanda Cafeteria Dispute To Arbitration, Holds Conduct Can Establish Agreement
Patna High Court Refers Nalanda Cafeteria Dispute To Arbitration, Holds Conduct Can Establish Agreement
2026-06-23 12:03 GMT
Correction Of Contradictory Operative Direction Does Not Amount To Review Of Award: Patna High Court
Correction Of Contradictory Operative Direction Does Not Amount To Review Of Award: Patna High Court
2026-06-23 11:05 GMT
Copyright @2026Powered by Blink CMS