Bombay HC – Minority Arbitral Award – Metro One Project & MMRDA – Scope of Powers of Section 34 Court
HELD that the Section 34 Court can take into consideration the findings of the dissenting minority award that there is absolutely no evidence to award claim in the sum of Rs.100 crores for additional overhead expenses. However, this is considered only for buttressing the High Court’s independent finding that the award of that claim is grossly perverse and patently illegal.
HELD that in the absence of any evidence on record, huge sum of Rs.125 crores is offered on a platter to MMOPL by recording generic finding on additional interest and financial expenditure. This finding is again based on a surmise in the absence of any concrete evidence on record. The dissenting minority award rightly holds that no account books have been produced by the Respondent. Rejection of claim in the light of the absence of evidence in the dissenting award appears to be in order. Here also, it needs to be clarified that the dissenting opinion in the Award is considered only for buttressing the finding that the award of claim towards additional interest /financial expenses is without any evidence. Award of claim in the Majority Award is independently found to be grossly perverse and patently illegal.
Judgment dated 24.2.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.427 of 2024 of Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority Vs. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited with I.A.No.3495 of 2025 of National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

