Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Confident Dental Equipments Ltd.
Respondent / Defendant
HSCC (India) Ltd. & Mr. M.L. Wadhwani
Dispute Summary
The Delhi District Court dismissed a petition by Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. to set aside an arbitral award that rejected its claims against HSCC (India) Ltd. The court found that the arbitral award did not suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice. The petitioner had sought to recover the price of seven dental chairs along with demurrage charges and other consequential reliefs. The arbitral award had imposed costs of Rs.2,25,000 on the petitioner.
Outcome / Ruling
defendant_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 4 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court Confient Dental Equipments Ltd vs Hscc India Ltd on 17 July, 2026 IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE-01, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI ARBTN CASES 03/2020 In the matter of:- Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. Through Regional Manager Regd. Office at - 11740/4, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. .........Petitioner Versus 1) HSCC (India) Ltd. A Govt. of India Enterprise Through Executive Director, (Proc. & PG-I) Regd. Office at - 205, Eastened Plaza, Plot no.4, DDA-LSC, Centre-II, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096. 2) Mr. M.L. Wadhwani Sole Arbitrator 114, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003. .......Respondents 17.07.2026 ORDER 1) By way of the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 1 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:27:57 +0530 Act"), the petitioner seeks setting aside of the arbitral award dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator whereby the claims of the petitioner were rejected and costs of Rs.2,25,000/- were imposed upon the petitioner payable to the respondent. 2) BRIEF FACTS:- a) Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that on 04.05.2007, the respondent placed a purchase order upon the petitioner for supply of seven dental chairs. Subsequently, by communication dated 23.05.2007, the purchase order was modified by adding one more dental chair. b) It is the case of the petitioner that one dental chair was supplied and installed at the CGHS Dispensary, Supreme Court, on 21.05.2007, however, certain defects and discrepancies were pointed out by the respondent vide communication dated 24.09.2007, which, according to the petitioner, were duly rectified to the satisfaction of the respondent, and thereafter no complaint in respect thereof was received. c) It is further pleaded that pursuant to the purchase order, the petitioner manufactured the remaining seven dental chairs and offered the same to the respondent on 08.08.2007. The respondent, however, insisted upon an inspection certificate from an approved ISO certifying agency. Consequently, the petitioner obtained an inspection certificate from M/s. ITL Labs Pvt. Ltd., Delhi on 14.08.2007. ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 2 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:02 +0530 d) Thereafter, the respondent inspected the seven dental chairs on 25.09.2007 and communicated certain deficiencies and discrepancies vide letter dated 26.09.2007. According to the petitioner, the said deficiencies were duly rectified. However, despite the same, the respondent cancelled the purchase order relating to the remaining seven dental chairs. e) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and filed claims seeking recovery of Rs.62,65,000/- towards the price of the seven dental chairs along with demurrage charges at the rate of Rs.15,03,600/- per annum and other consequential reliefs. f) Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, vide award dated 05.05.2016, rejected the claims of the petitioner and imposed costs of Rs.2,25,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed on the following grounds: (i) The impugned award is contrary to law and has been passed with personal bias against the petitioner. (ii) The arbitral proceedings concluded on 16.09.2013, whereafter the matter was reserved for award. Since no award was pronounced for nearly two years, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions for expeditious pronouncement of the award. Pursuant thereto, on 02.03.2015, the Hon'ble High Court requested the Ld. Sole Arbitrator to do the needful and because of the petitioner's approaching the Hon'ble High Court, the Ld. Arbitrator became ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 3 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:07 +0530 annoyed and consequently passed the impugned award against the petitioner out of personal bias. (iii) The Ld. Arbitrator committed misconduct by keeping the matter reserved for an inordinately long period before pronouncing the award. (iv) The Ld. Arbitrator misconstrued the contents of the petitioner's letter dated 28.09.2007 and erroneously recorded findings unsupported by the record. 3) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:- a) Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned arbitral award dated 05.05.2016 is liable to be set aside as the same is a non- speaking and unreasoned award. It is submitted that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has neither discussed the evidence led by the parties nor assigned any cogent reasons while rejecting the claims of the petitioner. b) It is further argued that the respondent had cancelled the purchase order without assigning any valid reason. Ld. counsel further submitted that although the respondent had not preferred any counterclaim before the Ld. Arbitrator, the Ld. Arbitrator nevertheless imposed costs of Rs.2,25,000/- upon the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary. c) It is further contended that the Ld. Arbitrator gravely erred in construing the petitioner's letter dated 28.09.2007 as an admission. ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 4 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:11 +0530 According to the petitioner, the said communication was merely a clarification in response to the respondent's letter dated 26.09.2007 and could not, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as an admission of the alleged deficiencies. It is thus prayed that the impugned award be set aside. 4) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent:- a) Per contra, Ld. counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the same is a well-reasoned award based upon appreciation of the material available on record. It is argued that a plain reading of the petitioner's letter dated 28.09.2007 clearly establishes that the petitioner had admitted the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent, and the Ld. Sole Arbitrator rightly relied upon the said communication while recording the findings. b) It is further argued that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground falling within the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Ld. counsel further argued that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 is supervisory and not appellate in nature. It is further argued that the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own view for that of the Ld. Arbitrator merely because another view is possible hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 5) I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the impugned award. ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 5 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:15 +0530 6) Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is apposite to notice the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7) It is a settled proposition of law that proceedings under Section 34 are not appellate proceedings. The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Ld. Arbitrator. It is further well settled that re-appreciation of evidence, reassessment of factual findings or substitution of the Court's own view for that of the Arbitrator is impermissible. 8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority ", (2015) 3 SCC 49, held that interference with an arbitral award is permissible only where the findings are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, where the award suffers from patent illegality going to the root of the matter, or where the award is in conflict with the public policy of India. The Court further held that the Arbitrator is the master of the quality and quantity of evidence and that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 cannot re-appreciate the evidence. 9) In " MMTC Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd. " AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1168 decided on 18 February, 2019, it has been held that as far as section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is concerned, the position is that Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award. Further, an arbitral award may not be interfered if the view taken by the arbitrator ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 6 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:20 +0530 is a possible view based on facts. 10) FINDINGS:- a) The principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned award is vitiated by personal bias of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. According to the petitioner, after it approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions for early pronouncement of the award, the Ld. Arbitrator became frustrated and passed the award against the petitioner. b) In view of this Court allegations of bias against an Arbitrator are serious in nature and cannot be accepted on the basis of conjectures or surmises. The party alleging bias is required to place on record cogent and convincing material giving rise to a reasonable apprehension regarding the impartiality or independence of the Arbitrator. c) In the present case, except making bald allegations in the petition, the petitioner has failed to place any material whatsoever to establish that the Ld. Arbitrator acted with personal bias or that the award was influenced by the petitioner's approaching the Hon'ble High Court. The mere fact that the Hon'ble High Court requested the Ld. Arbitrator to pronounce the award expeditiously does not, by itself, lead to an inference that the Ld. Arbitrator became prejudiced against the petitioner. Such an inference is purely speculative and unsupported by any material on record hence deserves outright rejection. d) The petitioner has also urged that the Ld. Arbitrator committed ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 7 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:25 +0530 misconduct by not pronouncing the award for a considerable period after reserving the matter for orders. e) This contention is equally devoid of merit. In considered opinion of this Court, delay in pronouncement of the award, by itself, does not constitute a ground under Section 34 unless it is shown that such delay has resulted in denial of a fair hearing, violation of principles of natural justice or any other statutory ground contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. No such prejudice has been established by the petitioner. f) The next submission of the petitioner is that the Ld. Arbitrator misconstrued the petitioner's letter dated 28.09.2007 and wrongly treated the same as containing an admission. g) The said contention essentially seeks a re-appreciation of documentary evidence considered by the Ld. Arbitrator. Such an exercise is clearly beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Act. This Court cannot reassess the evidentiary value of documents or substitute its own interpretation merely because another view is possible. h) The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Ld. Arbitrator are based on no evidence or that any vital evidence has been ignored. i) A careful reading of the impugned award shows that the Ld. ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 8 / 9 Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 16:28:29 +0530 Arbitrator has considered the pleadings, documentary evidence and rival contentions before recording the findings therefore the award cannot be said to suffer from patent illegality, perversity, violation of the principles of natural justice or conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law. j) This Court, therefore, finds no ground falling within the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 warranting interference with the impugned award. k) In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed, being devoid of merit. l) The arbitral award dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to further costs. File be consigned to the record room. Arbitral Record be sent back. Digitally signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.17 Announced in the open court 16:28:34 +0530 On 17.07.2026 (HEM SINGH) District Judge-01 (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ARBTN 3/20 Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. VS. HSCC (India) Ltd. & Anr. Page no. 9 / 9
Cancel
Update Case