Delhi High Court Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... vs Teknow Overseas Private Limited on 10 November, 2025 * % Reserved on: 16th October 2025 Pronounced on: 10th November 2025 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 170/2025 & CM APPL. 65604/2025 CM APPL. 65605/2025 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (BHEL) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Choudhary & Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advs. versus TEKNOW OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Moazzam Khan, Mr. Sumeet Lall, Mr. Prince Kumar, Mr. Sidhant Kapoor, Ms. Kopal Chaturvedi & Mr. Devesh Singh, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1976 ('A&C Act') assailing the impugned order dated 04th August 2025 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby certain claims towards pending invoices Signature Not Verified 1/17 Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMARFAO(OS) (COMM) 170/2025 Signing Date:11.11.2025 17:17:12 have been allowed. The genesis of the matter is a dispute between the parties pertaining to work order dated 30th April 2013 issued by appellant in favour of respondent/claimant, which contained an arbitration clause. 2. Respondent/claimant stated that it was engaged in civil and electrical works and executed projects of specialised nature, particularly in the Power, Steel, and Transmission Sector. 3. Respondent/claimant claimed itself to be a Micro & Small Enterprise ('MSME') and pursued its claims against the appellant and made a reference to Micro & Small Enterprise Facilitation Council ('MSEFC') for resolution of disputes under Section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSMED Act'). MSEFC referred the parties to Arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration & Conciliation Centre ('DIAC'). 4. The Sole Arbitrator nominated by the DIAC noted the claims raised by the respondent/claimant, as under: Claim No. 1 Bank guarantee charges of Rs. 99,895/; Claim No. 2 Outstanding dues for Running Account Bills of Rs. 31,26,447/; Claim No. 3 Over run charges of Rs. 3,20,536/; Claim No. 4 Cost of proceedings under Section 31AA of the A&C Act of Rs. 6,91,429/; and Claim No. 5 Interest of Rs. 1,12,23,035/. 5. By a tender of 2013, appellant invited work relating to the 400 kV Substation at Raichur, Karnataka. Respondent/claimant submitted its offer on 28th January 2013, and a Letter of Intent was issued by appellant by email Signature Not Verified 2/17 Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMARFAO(OS) (COMM) 170/2025 Signing Date:11.11.2025 17:17:12 dated 11th February 2013. Work order was awarded on 30th April 2013, with stipulated period for completion being 8 months, i.e. up to 10th October 2013. 6. Respondent/claimant stated that it could not complete the work order within time due to reasons attributable to appellant and sought extension of time ('EOT') vide letter dated 12th November 2013. EOT was granted by appellant by communication dated 19th November 2018, till 05th February 2015, without imposition of any penalty or liquidated damages. 7. As per respondent/claimant, appellant had recorded that overrun charges as per Clau