"Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Rejects Government's Appeal in Railway Lease Dispute: 'Courts Should Not Interfere Casually with Arbitral Awards'"
Sanchayita Lahkar
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the Union of India. The appeal challenged an earlier order upholding an arbitral award that directed the government to compensate Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for losses incurred during a 123-day period when its railway lease was terminated. The Court declined to interfere with the arbitral award, observing that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or denial of natural justice.
The Bench held that "the scope of interference under Section 37 of the A&C Act is limited and is primarily focused on ensuring that the arbitral process is fair and just" and concluded that "the appeal, being devoid of merit and bereft of any substantive grounds warranting interference, along with the pending application, is dismissed."
The case concerned a Lease Agreement dated 05.08.2008 between the Union of India (representing Northern Railways) and Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The respondent operated one Parcel Van service between Delhi and Howrah under Train No.13039/40. Initially agreed at Rs.87,799 per round trip, the rate was later revised to Rs.80,775 following a reduction in carrying capacity from 25 to 23 tons.
The lease, originally valid from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2010, was extended for two years upon submission of an affidavit by the respondent undertaking that it would not overload the Parcel Van, failing which it would be blacklisted and the lease terminated. Following this, the lease rate was increased to Rs.1,09,365 plus 2% TDC.
On 21.01.2011, the appellant received a report from the Vigilance Department indicating that on 17.01.2011, the Parcel Van was overloaded by 10,120 kg. A penalty of Rs.2,41,202 was imposed. Subsequently, based on instructions from its Headquarters, the appellant terminated the lease on 27.10.2011 and cancelled the respondent’s registration.
The respondent challenged this decision in O.M.P. No. 967/2011, leading the High Court to direct a proper inquiry. An inquiry report dated 11.02.2012 found discrepancies in the in-motion weighbridge used to detect the overloading. The report recommended lease restoration and refund of the penalty.
The appellant reinstated the lease on 19.03.2012. However, the respondent filed WP(C) 7174/2012 seeking compensation for the 134-day suspension period and refund of the penalty. The High Court directed the appellant to decide the issue by 26.11.2012. The appellant refused, leading to WP(C) 7413/2012. The Court ordered refund of the penalty with interest and advised the respondent to pursue civil remedies for compensation.
The respondent received the penalty refund of Rs.2,41,202 along with Rs.29,145 interest on 12.12.2014 and invoked arbitration for damages. The arbitrator awarded Rs.76,20,000 for the 123-day suspension. The appellant filed a petition under Section 34, which the Trial Court dismissed. The present appeal under Section 37 challenged the same.
The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Section 37 is narrowly defined and cannot be equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction. It referred to Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India and Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking to underscore that interference with arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or denial of natural justice.
Regarding the appellant’s claim that the train was non-operational for 62 days due to fog, the Court stated, "The Appellant did not urge the same in the grounds taken in the objections preferred under Section 34 of the A&C Act. While the Appellant cannot raise these grounds for the first time in an Appeal under Section 37... such an illegality must go to the root of the matter."
The Court examined the arbitral record and found that the Sole Arbitrator had addressed the fog argument. The arbitrator recorded, "The answering respondent has also tried to raise a new ground of its defense in its reply by saying that the present claimant was carrying on the parcel services of the train which remained cancelled for more than 62 days... the cancellation of the train is meaningless."
The Court further stated, "The Appellant cannot be permitted to improve upon its case in appeal by raising new grounds which were neither urged nor pressed at the inception of the dispute."
Regarding the quantum of loss and absence of documentary evidence, the Court found no reason to interfere, observing that "courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner" and that "mere dissatisfaction with the outcome or a speculative reinterpretation of facts does not suffice to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court."
The Court issued the following directive: "Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit and bereft of any substantive grounds warranting interference, along with the pending application, is dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash, SPC
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Goel, Mr. Aditya Goel, Advocates
Case Title: Union of India v. Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2867-DB
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 48/2025
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur
[Read/Download order]
