The Court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. These are two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) filed by the National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) against Bridge & Roof Company Limited (hereafter Respondent/Contractor) challenging two Awards arising out of the same set of facts. OMP No.1203 of 2013 challenges the majority Award dated 8th August 2013 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘AT’) allowing the claims of the Respondent Contractor to an extent of Rs.200.64 crores. OMP No.248 of 2014 challenges the majority Award of the AT dated 2nd November 2013 rejecting the counter claims of NHAI to the extent of Rs.17,98,45,886 (inclusive of interest) towards advances given to the Contractor.

2. It must be mentioned at the outset that the claims of the Contractor and the counter claims of NHAI were referred to two separate ATs. Although the nominees of the NHAI and the Contractor respectively were same in both ATs, the Presiding Arbitrator was different. The other significant feature is that the dissenting Award in both ATs was given by the nominee of the NHAI.

3. The Government of India through the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highway launched a national highways development programme which envisaged 4/6 laning and strengthening of the existing national highways which included a stretch from Km 26.00 to Km 70.00 of Bhogpur-Mukerian Section of NH-1A in the State of Punjab. The Respondent’s bid for undertaking to complete the work at the contract price of Rs.201 crores was accepted. The contract agreement was entered into between the parties on 4th October 2005.

4. The contract was a unit rate contract. The bidding documents contained detailed bill of quantities (‘BOQ’) containing the items of work with the estimated quantities of each item to be excluded by the contract i.e. M/s. Bridge & Roof Company Limited. The parties adopted the terms and conditions of the contract as contained in the General Conditions of Contract (‘GCC’) and Special Conditions of Contract (‘SCC’) to the extent they modified and amended the GCC clauses.

5. The date of start of work was 22nd November 2005. The stipulated date of completion was 21st May 2008. According to NHAI, the Respondent abandoned the work after 22nd April 2008. The firm of M/s. Engineers and Management Associates was engaged by NHAI to supervise the construction work. They were appointed as ‘Engineer’ for the project.

6. In terms of the contract, NHAI was to give the Respondent 10 Kms of land at the time of commencement of the project, 12 Kms after six months of commencement and 22 Kms after 12 months of commencement. According to NHAI all 22 Kms of land was made available to the Respondent at the beginning of the project out of which 10.535 Kms land between Km 28 to Km 45 was found to be obstruction free during the joint survey. It is also alleged by NHAI that the said land was between a concentrated stretch of Km 28 and Km 39 and Km 43 and Km 45. Besides most of the site for structure work, according to NHAI was available to the Respondent despite that the progress achieved by the Respondent was only 7% on account of poor planning and management at the site. It is stated that the availability of land was delayed on account of land acquisition formalities involved between the NHAI and the State authorities. This according to NHAI was beyond its control. It is stated that the matter was nevertheless resolved and land was progressively made available to the Respondent after disbursement of compensation to the land owners. It is claimed that in terms of the joint survey conducted on 26th March and 1st May 2008 the availability of land was 14 Km and 20.485 Km respectively. It is claimed that as on 21st May 2008, 25 Km of land was made available.

7. The case of the Respondent, however, is that the date of commencement was not specified in the contract as 22nd November 2005. This hinged upon compliance by NHAI with some of the express obligations contained in Clause 41.1