$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 440/2025 S K SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj & Mr. Kanav Agarwal, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Sanjay Pal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN O R D E R % 09.07.2026 1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) against the award dated 11.05.2013 and order dated 13.11.2014 wrongly typed as 29.01.2014. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent and thereafter a supplementary contract was executed between the parties. Dispute arose between the parties vis-à-vis the supplementary contract and the dues under the main contract. One of the grievances raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in arbitration was that the signature on the supplementary agreement was under coercion or undue influence. The three members tribunal vide impugned award dated 11.05.2013 held as under:- “On going through the records and evidence produced by the claimant & respondent, the Arbitrators are of the view that although there is no proof of obtaining the signature of the claimant on the supplementary agreement under coercion or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:41:41 under undue influence but since the claimant has signed the final bill „under protest‟ there seems to be dispute of claims which have not been settled and hence the same can be arbitrable. The claimant may approach to respondent for fresh legitimate genuine claims as per due procedure.” 3. The award was challenged by the respondent before this court by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. During the pendency of the petition, a clarification under Section 33(1) of the Act was issued vide order dated 29.01.2014. The reasoning was given by the tribunal on 13.11.2014 and the operative portion is re-produced below:- “In view of the above, the claim of the contractor that the Supplementary Agreement was signed by him under coercion has not been substantiated although the Arbitral Tribunal noted that there appears to be a dispute between the parties which has been brought out in the letter of the contractor dated 27.06.2007 and also by the fact that the final bill was signed under protest.” 4. The award and clarification were set aside vide judgement dated 15.07.2025. An oral submission was made during the hearing that there was no occasion for the petitioner (respondent in that case) to assail the impugned award. The court granted liberty to avail remedies to challenge the impugned award dated 11.05.2013 and order dated 13.11.2014 by which the tribunal gave the reasoning. 5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the impugned award and the order have already been set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that since the prayer sought in this petition has already been granted, no further order is called for. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:41:41 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail remedies to challenge the order. 8. The impugned award and the order have already been set aside and the field is open for the parties to proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, no further order is called for. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J JULY 9, 2026 Ch This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:41:41