Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Rejecting ₹205.70 Crore Claims Against KMRCL

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture and upheld an arbitral award rejecting its claims of about ₹205.70 crore against Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (KMRCL).

It found no ground to interfere with the tribunal's conclusions or the earlier order refusing to set aside the award.

A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the May 8, 2026 judgment of the Single Judge.

It held, "We are of the view that the Learned Single Judge has correctly exercised parameters of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 in evaluating the challenge to the award. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order or the award."

The dispute arose from a contract executed on March 10, 2010 for construction of the underground metro section between Central Station and Subhas Sarovar. The contract price was later revised from ₹908.63 crore to ₹1,279.81 crore after the project alignment changed.

In November 2019, the arbitral tribunal rejected the joint venture's claim of about ₹177.77 crore towards additional establishment costs and another claim of about ₹27.93 crore towards interest on retention money.

The Single Judge later declined to set aside the award. The joint venture then filed the present appeal.

The joint venture argued that the tribunal had misread the contract and wrongly rejected its claims. KMRCL maintained that the award reflected a plausible interpretation of the contract and called for no interference.

After examining the award, the court found no reason to interfere with the tribunal's rejection of the two disputed claims.

It observed, "In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal, in so far as such Arbitral Tribunal proceeding to disallow the two claims of the appellant are concerned, cannot be classified as perverse or patently unreasonable nor can it be said to have overlooked the provisions of law."

On the claim for interest on retention money, the court held that the tribunal had taken a plausible view after considering the contractual terms. It ruled, "So far as claim No. 3 is concerned, again, the view expressed by the Arbitral Tribunal on such aspect cannot be termed to be perverse or not a plausible view. Arbitral tribunal took into account the recovery made and the notification of the contract as also release of the retention money."

The court also noted that the revised contract price was agreed upon through an amendment order issued on November 8, 2016 during the extended contract period. Finding no infirmity in either the award or the Single Judge's order, it dismissed the appeal.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha, Advocates Anal Kumar Ghosh, Hashnuhana Chakraborty, Neelina Chatterjee, Ahana Bhattacharyya, Advocates 

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Sakya Sen, Advocates Sreya Basu, Sunil Gupta, Ankit Dey, Atri Mandal, Advocates