lawyer, scales of justice, judge-450205.jpg

Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs M/S Sweka PowerTechEngineers Pvt. Ltd settled the dispute between them by awarding the rightfully demanded claims of the respondent.


The Municipal Corporation of Delhi hired Sweka PowerTech Engineers Pvt Ltd for providing street lights and ancillary work in different areas of the Karol Bagh Zone. The work ordered was to be completed within six months. There was a delay in the work and until the deadline, only 41% of the work was done. The PowerTech company had also taken money for the completion of the work but the work was pending. The work was assumed to be related to Common Wealth Games and the delay caused a huge loss to the Corporation. The work was supposed to be completed by 15.01.2011. The work order had lost its worth due to delay as time was an important factor in the case. The main ground of the case was the Common Wealth Games but the game ended much before the completion date of work.

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff claimed that it incurred a huge loss due to the delay in work and not even a single street was illuminated. The appellant also said that the respondent had claimed payment falsely which is wrong. It also claimed that it had the right to have a check on the working of the respondent according to the order. Due to a delay in work, the appellant was forced to cancel the contract as it could not ensure more loss. It was said that because of the respondent, it became necessary to file an arbitration case and incur its cost.

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent claimed the amount fixed for completion of work along with interest and to return the security money which was deducted. It also asked for the loss amount due to the reduction of the work and cost of arbitration. The respondent’s claim that the work was not related to the Commonwealth Games was upheld. The claim of the amount by the respondent was not arbitrary and was according to the contract.


The High Court said that the Arbitrator’s findings were challenged because of advancement in evidence and no actual fault was there. The court awarded the respondent the claimed amount for the completion of work as the calculation was done with reasoning. The court agreed with the Arbitrator’s decision to refund the security amount. The court also asked to pay for the arbitration cost incurred by the respondent.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *