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

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 8
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Conciliation Act 1996 No. 206 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-53763
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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
8 All. S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
9
Non-Application of mind-Award delivered
awarding claims under 9 heads and dismissing
the counter-claim-aggrieved-challenged under
Section 34 of the Act-claim was limited only to
the extent of six claims and rejection of counterclaim-impugned order -though noticed the
challenge dealt with only one issue- reflective of
a total non-application of mind to the subject
matter-Out of 6 claims under challenge only 3
were
dealt
with
-judgement
cannot
be
sustained-W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
The Arbitration Act

List of Keywords
Non-application of mind, wholly mechanical
manner, de hors the challenge laid

Appearances 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

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
8 All. S.S. Total Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
9
Non-Application of mind-Award delivered
awarding claims under 9 heads and dismissing
the counter-claim-aggrieved-challenged under
Section 34 of the Act-claim was limited only to
the extent of six claims and rejection of counterclaim-impugned order -though noticed the
challenge dealt with only one issue- reflective of
a total non-application of mind to the subject
matter-Out of 6 claims under challenge only 3
were
dealt
with
-judgement
cannot
be
sustained-W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
The Arbitration Act

List of Keywords
Non-application of mind, wholly mechanical
manner, de hors the challenge laid

Appearances 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.

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,
commencement of work was 07.05.2016 and
the stipulated time for completion was
fourteen months i.e. the scheduled date of
completion was 06.07.2017.

3. It is alleged that the execution of the
works was delayed inordinately due to events
attributable to the respondents which led to
the slippage in the planned progress of work.
Extension of time was granted upto
15.01.2018 and to the actual date of
completion i.e. 28.04.2018.

4. 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').

5. 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. Statement of
claim raising claims under 11 distinct heads
was filed to which statement of defence along
with counter-claim 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
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was limited to claim 5(a) pertaining to
claim on account of extra expenditure
incurred due to increase in wages of labour
in prolongation of contract, claim 5(c)
pertaining to damages on account of site
establishment in prolongation of contract,
claim 5(d) pertaining to extra expenditure
incurred on H.O. fixed expenditure due to
prolongation of contract, claim 6 pertaining
to bonus as per Clause 2A, claim 8
pertaining to refund of GST and claim 10
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, only dealt with the
issue pertaining to claim granted under
claim nos. 5(a), 5(c) and 5(d) and set aside
the entire award dated 10.12.2022 without
even dealing with claim nos. 6, 8 and 10.

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 11
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 6
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 3 heads by the
Arbitrator has already been paid to the
appellant, however, the Commercial Court,
though no challenge was laid to other
claims awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal
and in fact paid, by dealing with only claim
awarded due to the delayed completion of
project, which determination also is wholly
incorrect, 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 that 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 limited only to the extent of six
claims and rejection of counter-claim.
However, the Commercial Court though
noticed the challenge laid, in a wholly
misguided manner and apparently without
even looking at the record of the case has
dealt with only one issue, which arose in
the application under Section 34 of the Act
i.e.
pertaining
to
the
award
of
compensation for delayed completion of
work under Claim 5(a), 5(c) & 5(d) only.

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 non-
8 All. Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State
11
application of mind to the subject matter
and the extent of the challenge laid. Out of
6 claims under challenge only 3 were dealt
with and not a word has been indicated qua
the rest. Even the issue dealt with is in a
wholly curosry manner and as such, the
judgement cannot be sustained.

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 11
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1993

Devendra Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.H. Ibrahim, Amarendra Kr. Bajpai, Divesh
Mishra, IK Mishra, I.P. Singh, K.K.Tewari,
Kaushlendra Tiwari, Ratnesh Agnihotri,
Rishad Murtaza, S K Shukla, Sachidanand
Mishra, Shri Prakash Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Aniruddh Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matters relates to Criminal appeal against
conviction and sentence for dacoity(S.395
IPC:10 years' RI and Rs. 10000 fine) and
dacoity with deadly weapon (S. 397 IPC: 7
years' RI, concurrent), arising from a midnight
home invasion involving alleged loot, assault,
and attempted rape in a village feud.

Headnotes
Criminal
law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-S.
374(2)-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Ss.
395,397-Challenge
toConviction-Dacoity prosecution burdenContradictions
in
eye
witnesses-Nonproduction of key witnesses-Conviction
based on presumption without resolving
contradictions
or
improbabilities
is
unsustainable-Simple
injuries
to
four
persons amid alleged assault by 9-10
armed men-no medical examination of
complainant-no loot recovery-Acquittal on
benefit of doubt-The appeal is allowed.

Held
The
court
held
that
there
is
material
contradictions in PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3's
testimonies regarding arms carried by unnamed
accused, source of firing and (courtyard or roof)
and cartridge collection undermine credibilityUnexplained recovery of cartridges post-FIR
suggests possible planting-Non-production of
torches as material exhibits, despite memos,
creates
doubt-Failure
to
examine
injured
daughters -in -law or independent witnesses
despite their materiality, coupled with IO's note
of their non-disclousre of gun insertion, entitles
accused to beneffit of doubt-The trial court's
judgment dated 07.11.1993 set aside.(Para 13
to 35) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Iqbal & Anr Vs St. of U.P.(2015)4 ALJ 239, Rang
Bahadur Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2000) J.Cr.C. 259
(S.C.),Harbeer Singh Vs Sheeshpal Singh & Ors
(2017) JCR 508 (SC), Juggi @ Jugendra & Ors
Vs St. of U.P. (2015)1 JIC 662 (All),Manzoor Vs
St. of U.P. AIR (1983) SC 295 & Dhaniram Vs
St. of U.P.(1997) J.Cr.C. 692 (All.),Ram Ratan
Vs St. of M.P.,MANU/SC/1279/2021 [AIR 2022
SC 518], Amish Devgan Vs UOI & Ors;
MANU/SC/0921/2020
[(2021)
1
SCC
1)],
Ganesan & Ors Vs St. rep. by SHO & Ors,
MANU/SC/1015/2021 [(AIR 2021 SC 5643)],
Ashfaq Vs. St. (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
MANU/SC/1042/2003[(AIR 2004 SC 1253)],