1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award dated 16th March, 2012 received by the petitioner on 19th March, 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner invited bids for the work of construction of Allahabad Bypass Project-Construction of road from km. 158 to Km. 198 (except Ganga Bridge) Package ABP- 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Contract”). The respondent amongst others submitted its bid for execution and completion of works and the petitioner awarded the work in respect of project through respondent vide Contract Agreement dated 2nd June, 2004. The total contract value was Rs. 446.99 crores. The joint venture of M/s BCEOM-LASA (JV) was appointed as the Engineer is to supervise the contract work.

3. The contract was a unit rate contract and contained the detailed documents “Bills of quantity” containing the items of work to be executed by the contractor and also the estimated quantities of each item to be executed by the contractor. The rates against each item were to be filed in by the Bidders/Contractors. The parties adopted the terms and conditions of the contract as contained in General Conditions of Contract (GCC), the Special conditions of contract wherever provided, as contained in conditions of particular applications (COPA) were to override the GCC.

4. The work under the contract was to be executed within the period of 30 months from the date of commencement of the work in terms of clause 43 of GCC. The work was extended on accounts of the defaults which parties allege against each other and the period of the contract had to be extended in accordance with the provisions of contract and extension of time was to be granted for completion of work. The Claimant/respondent vide its letter dated 15th December, 2006 and subsequent letters applied for overall extension of time of 1209 days. However, the Engineer after considering all the factors granted on overall extra time of 1027 days to the respondent for completion of work. Eventually the work was actually completed in 1027 days, i.e. on 30th September, 2009 though the work on Main Carriage Way was substantially completed on 21st May, 2009.

5. The Engineer had after review and consideration of the events of delays had made his determination and recommended the extension of time to the respondent. The respondent after review of engineers assessment had approved and accepted the final determination of the Engineer. As per the over all approved extension of time, the date for completion of whole of the works was extended from 9th December, 2006 till 30th September, 2009. All the works under the contract have also been completed by the said date and completion/taking over certificates have also been issued. Hence there is no dispute on this aspect.

6. Consequent to the delays and extended stay in the project site, the claimant had submitted the claims to the Engineers for the payment of additional costs which he considered to be due and payable in terms of applicable conditions of contract for a sum of Rs. 83.81 crores for the extended period from 1st May, 2008 to 30th September, 2009. The additional costs claimed for the first period is called as dispute No. 8 and for the next period is called 8A.

7. The Engineer had not made his determination of the additional costs and hence the claimant had sought the intervention of employer for settlement of disputes. Since the employer had also not settled the disputes, the disputes were referred to DRB. The DRB had disposed Dispute No. 8 by suggesting that the dispute can be referred back to Engineer. Being aggrieved with the DRB’s decision, the claimant issued notice of intention to commence Arbitration on Dispute No. 8. On Dispute No. 8A, the DRB could not issue its recommendation within the stipulated time and asked for extension, however claimant issued notice of his intention to refe