# S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 6
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Conciliation Act 1996 No. 205 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-s-total-construction-i-pvt-ltd-v-union-of-india-53735
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section - 34, - General Clauses
of Contract - Section - 25, 25(i)- Appeal u/s
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- challenges the Commercial Court, judgment -
by which the court below set aside the
impugned arbitral award - composite tender
floated - for Civil and Electrical Works -
Appellant participated in bidding process -
contract and agreement - Contract dispute -
appellant claimed required the respondent to
release the withheld payment and for other
losses and damages - Arbitration proceeding -
Award - Appeal under Section 34 - refund of
GST and interest and the rejection of the
counter-claim
-
grounds
taken
that
the
Commercial Court erroneously addressed and
invalidated
the
entire
award
based
on
compensation for project delay, an issue not
raised in the challenge - Appellate court finds
that, challenged laid was very limited only to the
extent of two claims and rejection of counterclaim, however the commercial court in wholly
misguided manner and apparently without even
looking at the record of the case has dealt with
the issue - consequently, the appeal is allowed
- matter is remanded back to the commercial
court for re-hearing and deciding the same
afresh. (Para - 13, 14, 16)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
No case law cited.

LIST OF ACTS
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, General
Clauses of Contract (GCC),

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Arbitration Award - Section 34 Challenge - GST
Refund - Interest on Claim - Judicial Review -
Procedural Impropriety - Remand - application
of mind.

CASE ARISING FROM
Date of Judgment and order dated 13.05.2025
passed by the Commercial Court, Bareilly, -
Award dated 10.12.2022 passed in Arbitration
proceedings.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Anurag Khanna, Sr.
Advocate with Neelesh Ramchandani, Shivangi
Tripathi,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.P. Singh,
A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar Singh.

## Text

6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 8 ILRA 6
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration And
Conciliation Act 1996 No. 205 of 2025

S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anurag Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Neelesh
Ramchandani, Shivangi Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.P. Singh, A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Commercial Court erred in setting
aside the arbitral award beyond the scope of
challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section - 34, - General Clauses
of Contract - Section - 25, 25(i)- Appeal u/s
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- challenges the Commercial Court, judgment -
by which the court below set aside the
impugned arbitral award - composite tender
floated - for Civil and Electrical Works -
Appellant participated in bidding process -
contract and agreement - Contract dispute -
appellant claimed required the respondent to
release the withheld payment and for other
losses and damages - Arbitration proceeding -
Award - Appeal under Section 34 - refund of
GST and interest and the rejection of the
counter-claim
-
grounds
taken
that
the
Commercial Court erroneously addressed and
invalidated
the
entire
award
based
on
compensation for project delay, an issue not
raised in the challenge - Appellate court finds
that, challenged laid was very limited only to the
extent of two claims and rejection of counterclaim, however the commercial court in wholly
misguided manner and apparently without even
looking at the record of the case has dealt with
the issue - consequently, the appeal is allowed
- matter is remanded back to the commercial
court for re-hearing and deciding the same
afresh. (Para - 13, 14, 16)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
No case law cited.

LIST OF ACTS
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, General
Clauses of Contract (GCC),

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Arbitration Award - Section 34 Challenge - GST
Refund - Interest on Claim - Judicial Review -
Procedural Impropriety - Remand - application
of mind.

CASE ARISING FROM
Date of Judgment and order dated 13.05.2025
passed by the Commercial Court, Bareilly, -
Award dated 10.12.2022 passed in Arbitration
proceedings.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Anurag Khanna, Sr.
Advocate with Neelesh Ramchandani, Shivangi
Tripathi,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.P. Singh,
A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against
judgement dated 13.05.2025 passed by the
Commercial Court, Bareilly whereby the
application filed by the respondent - Union
of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') against
award dated 10.12.2022 has been allowed
and award impugned has been set aside.
8 All. S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
7
2. Respondent floated a composite
tender (civil and electrical work) for
construction of permanent infrastructure at
SHQ & Bn. Headquarters, Lakhimpur
Kheri
under
Lucknow
frontier;
the
appellant participated in the biding process
and
was
awarded
the
contract
and
agreement was entered into. As per the
agreement, date of commencement of the
work was 04.05.2016 and the stipulated
time for completion was fourteen months
i.e. the scheduled date of completion was
03.07.2017.

3. It was claimed by the appellant that
upon receiving the payment as per
unilateral final bill finalized by the
respondent, the appellant required the
respondent to release the withheld payment
and also claimed that it had suffered other
losses and damages due to prolongation of
the contract. It was also indicated that the
payment received be treated as 'payment
accepted under protest' and the notice be
treated as notice under Section 25(i) of the
General Clauses of Contract ('GCC').

4. In terms of the GCC, Dispute
Redressal Committee was constituted,
which rendered its decision on 15.01.2021,
however, the appellant being dissatisfied
with the said decision sought appointment
of
Arbitrator.
Sole
Arbitrator
was
appointed in terms of Clause 25 of the
GCC.

5. Statement of claim raising claims
under 13 distinct heads was filed to which
statement of defence along with counterclaim was filed, a rejoinder to the statement
of defence and reply to the counter-claim
was filed by the appellant. The Arbitrator
delivered
the
award
on
10.12.2022
awarding claims under 9 heads and
dismissing the counter-claim.

6. Aggrieved of the award dated
10.12.2022, application under Section 34 of
the Act was filed by the respondent, which
was limited to claim no. 10 pertaining to
claim on account of refund of GST and
claim no. 12 regarding award of interest on
the claim awarded besides rejection of
counter-claim pertaining to appellant's
liability to pay GST on reimbursement.

7. The Commercial Court by the
judgement impugned, dealt the merit of the
award under Point no. 1 pertaining to
award of compensation for the delay in
completion of the work and came to the
conclusion that the award was patently
illegal and consequently, set aside the
impugned award dated 10.12.2022.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
made vehement submissions that the
judgement passed by the commercial court
is a result of non-application of mind to the
dispute before the court. Submissions have
been made that the commercial court has
passed
the
judgement
in
a
wholly
mechanical manner, without even adverting
to the factual aspect of the matter.

9. Submissions have been made that
before the Arbitrator claims under 13
distinct heads were raised, out of which
under 9 heads, award was made in favour
of the appellant and counter-claim was
rejected and the application under Section
34 of the Act was restricted only qua two
claims awarded in favour of the appellant
and the rejection of the counter-claim.

10. It is further submitted that in fact
the award made under 7 heads by the
Arbitrator has already been paid to the
appellant, however, the Commercial Court
on an issue, which was not even raised in
the case, pertaining to the compensation for
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delayed completion of project has set aside
the entire award, which determination
deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Learned counsel for the Union of
India could not dispute the submissions
made pertaining to the limited extent of
challenge laid under Section 34 of the Act,
payment of rest of the award having been
made and passing of the judgement by the
commercial court de hors the challenge
laid.

12.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made by counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

13. A bare perusal of the award passed
by the Arbitral Tribunal and challenge laid
under Section 34 of the Act by the
respondent, it is apparent that the challenge
laid was very limited only to the extent of
two claims and rejection of counter-claim.
However, the Commercial Court though
noticed the challenge laid pertaining to the
claim on account of refund of GST and
award of interest by the Arbitral Tribunal,
in a wholly misguided manner and
apparently without even looking at the
record of the case has dealt with the issue,
which did not arise in the application under
Section 34 of the Act at all i.e. pertaining to
the award of compensation for delayed
completion of work.

14.
The
manner
in
which
the
judgement
has
been
passed
by
the
Commercial Court leaves much to be
desired and is reflective of a total nonapplication of mind to the subject matter
and essentially misuse of technology
whereby
apparently
from
the
other
judgement passed between the same
parties, a part of the determination has been
copy pasted in the present case, which
action of the Presiding Officer of the
Commercial Court cannot be appreciated
and vitiates the judgement impugned.

15. Consequently, the appeal is
allowed. The judgement dated 13.05.2025
passed by the Commercial Court is quashed
and set aside.

16. The matter is remanded back to the
Commercial Court, Bareilly for re-hearing
and deciding the same afresh based on the
submissions made and the record of the
case.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 8
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration And
Conciliation Act 1996 No. 206 of 2025

S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicants:
Anurag Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Neelesh
Ramchandani, Shivangi Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.P. Singh, A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar Singh

Issue for consideration
Pertains to application of mind while passing the
judgement dated 13.05.2025 passed by the
Commercial Court, Bareilly in application under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Headnotes