Back
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
C & C Constructions Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
IRCON International Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract for road over bridges (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims for damages rejected (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellant's claims for damages (Para 10) |
| 4. respondent's defense on clause 49.5 (Para 11) |
| 5. validity of clause 49.5 (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. estoppel from claiming damages (Para 19) |
| 7. appeal dismissed (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. We refer to a few factual aspects of the case. An agreement dated 28th June, 2012 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for constructing five Road Over Bridges (for short, ‘ROBs’) and their approaches at different locations in the State of Rajasthan. The schedule of completion in respect of each ROB was different. The locations where ROBs were to be constructed have been described as LC-200, LC-89, LC-228, LC-233 and LC-108. According to the appellant's case, the work at the sites was delayed for the reasons attributable to the respondent. According to the appellant's case, the respondent withdrew the work relating to the construction of two ROBs (LC-200 and LC-233) from the scope of work and certified the completion of the remaining work. There is no d
Limitation of liability clauses in contracts are enforceable, and acceptance of contract terms precludes subsequent claims for damages.
The court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's award on escalation claims, affirming the limited grounds for judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
A deleted contractual clause cannot be automatically revived upon extension of the contract; explicit agreement is required for revival.
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
The court upheld the finality of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reaffirming that claims barred by contract ....
The scope of interference with the Arbitral Award under Section 37 is narrower and more limited than under Section 34.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
