The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in a limitation dispute against HCC Samsung JV, even while pulling up the public utility for trying to game the system. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla revived DMRC's challenge to an arbitral award, but not without imposing punitive costs of ₹5,00,000.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a 2013 contract for civil works between DMRC and HCC Samsung JV. After the JV raised claims for compensation over delays and variations, and DMRC rejected them, the matter went to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal delivered its majority award on 23 February 2024, with a dissenting opinion following on 28 February 2024.
Instead of directly filing a Section 34 petition to challenge the award, DMRC first moved an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act on 22 March 2024, describing it as a request for "correction." But the application, spanning several detailed pages, actually questioned the Tribunal's calculations and findings on merits - far beyond the narrow scope Section 33 allows for fixing clerical or computational slips.
The Tribunal rejected this application on 3 June 2024. DMRC then filed its Section 34 petition on 29 August 2024 - a date that would be within time only if the limitation clock was reset by the Section 33 application.
High Court’s Observation
The Single Judge had earlier dismissed DMRC's petition as time-barred, holding that a Section 33 application seeking a "wholesale review" could never extend limitation, relying on the earlier Damani Construction precedent.
The Division Bench disagreed. Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Geojit Financial Services and NHAI v. T. Younis, the Bench held that once a formal application is filed within thirty days and with notice to the other side, the limitation period runs from its disposal - regardless of whether the application actually qualifies under Section 33.
The Bench, however, did not mince words about DMRC's conduct, observing that the application was "completely lacking in bona fides" and appeared designed merely to buy time before filing the real challenge.
Court’s Decision
The Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment and held that DMRC's Section 34 petition could not be dismissed as time-barred. At the same time, considering the application was a sham, the Bench imposed costs of ₹5,00,000 on DMRC, payable to HCC Samsung JV within twelve weeks, while noting the burden would ultimately fall on public funds.
Case Details:
Case Title: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. HCC Samsung JV
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2025, CM APPL. 25351/2025
Judge: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Decision Date: August 17, 2026
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
