The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that it was difficult to believe that an organisation such as the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court called DMRC's application seeking correction of the arbitral award a “classic case of misuse of Section 33”. It observed that the application may have been intended to obtain “breathing space” to challenge the substantive award.

Section 33 allows a party to approach the arbitral tribunal for correction of computational, clerical or typographical errors in an award. It also covers other errors of a similar nature.

The court, however, set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing DMRC's challenge to the arbitral award as time-barred.

It held that limitation for a Section 34 challenge runs from the date on which a Section 33 application is disposed of, even if the application is later found to be frivolous or beyond the scope of Section 33.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also imposed ₹5 lakh in costs on DMRC for misusing Section 33.

The amount has to be paid to HCC Samsung JV within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment.

“It is not possible for us to believe that an organization such as the appellant did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 and what is permitted thereunder. This, therefore, is a classic case of misuse of Section 33, perhaps with a view to obtain breathing space to launch the challenge to the substantive award,” the bench observed.

The dispute arose from a civil works contract dated February 28, 2013, between DMRC and HCC Samsung JV.

HCC Samsung JV raised a compensation claim on July 30, 2018, citing variations in the works and delay in completion. DMRC rejected the claim on May 23, 2019, following which arbitration was invoked. A three-member arbitral tribunal was constituted on September 24, 2020.

Two members of the tribunal issued the majority award on February 23, 2024. The third member issued a dissenting award on February 28, 2024.

DMRC then filed an application under Section 33 on March 22, 2024, purportedly seeking corrections to the majority award.

The tribunal rejected the application on June 3, 2024.

DMRC then approached the Delhi High Court on August 29, 2024 under Section 34. This provision allows a party to seek the setting aside of an arbitral award.

Section 34(3) generally provides three months to challenge an arbitral award. A further 30 days may be allowed where sufficient cause is shown, but not beyond that period.

Where a request has been made under Section 33, however, the limitation period runs from the date on which that request is disposed of.

HCC Samsung JV argued that DMRC could not rely on the Section 33 application because it was not seeking correction of errors.

It argued that DMRC had instead attempted to reopen substantive findings in the award.

The Single Judge accepted the objection and, on February 20, 2025, dismissed DMRC's Section 34 petition as time-barred.

The judge found that the Section 33 application amounted to a wholesale review of the award and was a mischievous attempt to avoid the statutory limitation period.

DMRC challenged the order before the Division Bench. It relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav and National Highways Authority of India v. T. Younis.

The Division Bench held that it was bound by the law laid down in those rulings. Once a formal Section 33 application is made within the prescribed period and is disposed of by the tribunal, limitation under Section 34 runs from that disposal.

This applies even if the application is later found to be a sham or beyond the scope of Section 33.

The bench distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co.

In that case, there was no formal Section 33 application. The party had merely sent a letter seeking review and other relief.

In the present case, DMRC had formally filed a Section 33 application, which was considered and rejected by the tribunal.

The bench nevertheless found that DMRC's application went beyond the scope of Section 33.

It did not merely identify clerical or typographical mistakes. It questioned the tribunal's interpretation of contractual provisions, its calculations, and substantive findings in the award.

The court observed that the application was “completely lacking in bona fides”. It found that the application essentially sought re-adjudication of the dispute.

The bench, therefore, set aside the Single Judge's order. It held that DMRC's Section 34 challenge could not have been rejected as time-barred.

It nevertheless imposed ₹5 lakh in costs on DMRC, payable to HCC Samsung JV within 12 weeks.

For Appellant (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.): Senior Advocate Parag P. Tripathi, with Advocates Tarun Johri, Vishwajeet Tyagi and Rini Mehra.

For Respondent (HCC Samsung JV): Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, with Advocates Kartik Yadav, Parinay T. Vasandani, Siddhant Kaushik, Shriyanshi Pathak, Yugandhara Pawar Jha and Abhimanyu Arya.

Tags:    
Case Title :  Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. HCC Samsung JVCase Number :  FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2025, CM APPL. 25351/2025CITATION :  2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 836
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE