Delhi HIgh Court

Delhi HC: Arbitrator's Decision on Security Firm's Interest and Costs Deemed Unclear

Updated
Feb 12, 2026 11:30 PM
delhi-hc-arbitrators-decision-on-security-firms-interest-and-costs-deemed-unclear

Here's a breakdown of a court case involving Gorkha Security Services and the Directorate of Health Services in Delhi. The case revolves around unpaid wages and costs related to a security services contract.

Background of the Case

Gorkha Security Services, a partnership firm, was given a contract by the Directorate of Health Services in Delhi. This contract, dated December 21, 2010, was for providing security guards to various clinics from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. The contract was extended until March 31, 2015.

Issues with Payment

The main problem started when the Directorate did not pay the increased wages as per the revised minimum wages before November 2014. Gorkha Security Services claimed that even though they paid their workers the higher wages, the Directorate did not pay them back these amounts.

"The Directorate of Health Services failed to pay Gorkha Security Services the increased contract rates, which were in line with the current minimum wages."

Arbitration and Claims

On July 22, 2015, Gorkha Security Services decided to use the arbitration clause due to non-payment issues. The arbitrator, appointed on January 11, 2016, looked at four claims:

  1. Unpaid Bills: Rs. 1,46,87,834
  2. Increased Wages: Rs. 2,01,81,258
  3. Refund of Security Deposit
  4. Interest and Costs

The arbitrator approved the first two claims but turned down the claim for interest and costs.

Court's Decision on Interest and Costs

Gorkha Security Services contested the arbitrator's decision regarding interest and costs in the Delhi High Court. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar found the arbitrator's decision on Claim No. 4 to be unclear and lacking explanation.

"The decision made about Claim No. 4 fits into Category 1, which includes cases where either no reasons are given or the reasons provided are so unclear."

Outcome

The court canceled the arbitrator's decision on Claim No. 4 and sent the case back to the arbitrator for another review.