Claim For Extra Work Unsupported By Evidence Is Not Sustainable: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge against an arbitral award, affirming that claims for additional work cannot be sustained on self-serving charts without joint measurements or documentary proof of costs.

In a decisive ruling, a single-judge bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan heard an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court was tasked with determining whether an arbitral award dismissing the claims of a contractor for additional work done beyond the original contract value was perverse or legally flawed.

Arbitrator’s Finding On Fact Not Open To Interference

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s claim for over ₹2.5 crores against a contract originally valued at ₹48 lakhs lacked credibility, especially since the contractor had already received payments exceeding the original contract value. The Court emphasized that under the terms of the agreement, specifically Clause 21, payments were contingent upon actual measurements carried out jointly.

Rationale On Documentary Proof and Contractual Breach

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The claim for additional work thus rested entirely on a self-serving chart unsupported by documentary proof. The petitioner failed to produce the joint measurement in support of the claim made. During the proceedings on a specific query by the arbitrator, the petitioner admitted that joint measurement register was not maintained. The petitioner miserably failed to prove that the scope of work was varied or increased and the additional work was done by the petitioner. The rejection of the claim by the arbitrator suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity."

Background:

The dispute originated from a work order dated May 11, 2017, issued by the Rajasthan Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd for building repairs and painting. The contract was valued at ₹48,00,000/- and was to be completed by December 31, 2017. While the petitioner raised five Running Account (RA) bills and received approximately ₹49.2 lakhs, the respondent eventually terminated the contract on April 10, 2019, citing slow progress and under-deployment of labor.

Following the termination, the petitioner submitted a final bill for a staggering ₹2,58,78,656/-. When the matter reached arbitration, the arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the contractor responsible for the delay and noting a lack of evidence for the additional work claimed. The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, relying on the principles laid down in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority ( "(2015) 3 SCC 49": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 661) to argue that the award was perverse. However, the Court found that the petitioner had breached Clause 17 regarding labor insurance and failed to maintain joint measurement records. Consequently, the Court held that the arbitrator’s view was plausible and refused to interfere with the award.

Case Details:
Case No.: O.M.P. (COMM) 448/2024
Case Title: NANDINI ENTERPRISING v. RAJASTHAN CO OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD AND ANR
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bipin Kr. Prabhat, Mr. Ashok Kr. Verma, Mr. Kislaya Prabhat & Ms. Rinku Kumari, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Mr. Sarthak Mittal & Mr. Prabin Mohan, Advs.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 371