1. These are two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging the impugned Award dated 11th September 2008 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) and Gammon India Limited (‘GIL’). OMP No. 6 of 2009 filed by GIL challenges the impugned Award to the extent that it has allowed Claim No. 1 (b) only in part and disallowed Claim Nos. 1(a), 1 (c), 1(d), 1(e) and Claim Nos. 2 (2), (3) and (4) and Claim No. 4. OMP No. 674 of 2008 is by the DDA to the extent that the learned sole Arbitrator has allowed the claims of GIL granting interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Background facts are that by a letter dated 7th January 1999, the following work of construction of flyover/grade separate in Delhi at four junctions was awarded by DDA to GIL:

(i)	Mathura Road NH-2	Road No. 13A
(ii)	NH-24	Noida Road
(iii)	Vikas Marg	Road No. 57
(iv)	Wazirabad Road	Road No. 66

3. A formal agreement was signed by both the parties on 9th January 1999. The stipulated date of start of the construction work was 22nd January 1999 with a construction period of 18 months. The actual date of completion of work for all the flyovers mentioned above were 21st February 2001, 30th November 2003, 25th July 2002 and 26th May 2003 respectively.

4. Both the parties state that the various delays occurred from time to time and extension of time (‘EoT’) for completion of work was allowed by the DDA to GIL.

5. It is pointed out on behalf of the GIL that DDA granted EoT till the actual date of completion without levying compensation liquidated damages (‘LD’) for all the flyovers except for the flyover/grade separator at the junction of Noida Road. It is pointed out that initially by the letter dated 4th March 2003 DDA granted EoT for this purpose upto 30th September 2003. However, later by a letter dated 4th March 2004 the Engineer-in-Charge (‘EIC’) granted EoT for completion of the work at Noida upto 12th September 2003 without levy of compensation and for the period from 13th September 2003 to 30th November 2003 with compensation of Rs. 65,000.

6. As already noticed hereinbefore, there were four major claims by GIL. DDA also preferred its counter-claims. By the impugned Award dated 11th September 2008 the learned sole Arbitrator allowed only Claim 1 (b) which was for reimbursement of additional supervision charges in the sum of Rs. 35,10,000 as against Rs. 3,96,71,904 that was claimed by GIL. Further, the learned Arbitrator allowed Claim 2 (5) towards the amount receivable on satisfaction of quality quarries in the sum of Rs.3,50,000. The learned Arbitrator allowed Claim No. 3 towards interest @ 18% per annum on the aforementioned sums from 14th December 2004 to 11th September 2008. All the other claims were rejected. As regards DDA’s counter-claims 'on account of waviness and poor finishing of road work on the flyover', a sum of Rs.14,87,500 was awarded.

7. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned Senior counsel appearing for GIL and Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, learned counsel appearing for DDA.

8. Claim No. 1 (a) by GIL is for refund of additional rent recovered from it by the DDA due to prolongation of contract period beyond the stipulated period of 18 months. The amount claimed by GIL was Rs. 52,05,000. This claim was rejected by the learned Arbitrator on the ground that DDA had provided land to GIL on leave and licence basis and recovered rent for the actual period for which land was utilized by the GIL.

9. Clause 4 of Letter of Award (‘LoA’) dated 7th January 1999 stipulated the terms on which the land would be allotted. In terms of Clause 10, the LoA formed part of the contract. Thus, the leave and licence agreement was linked with the contract. The relevant portion of the Clause 4 of the LoA reads as under:

“4. Land will