The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the express terms of the contract and upheld the principle that claims for additional payment must align with the contractual provisions.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, impugning the arbitral award dated 18.01.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three arbitrators, namely, Sh. Jagdish Kumar (Presiding), Sh. R.K. Yadav and Sh. Ajay Sharma (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the contract for execution of the work of Design and Construction of main viaduct, Ramp on both sides, Mukundpur Elevated station including Architectural Finishing Works, Auto Coach Washing Plant Platform and Entry/Exist line to Mukundpur Depot (Scope of work starts from Ch.334.65 M) on Mukundpur-Yamuna Vihar Corridor (Line-7) of Phase-III, Delhi. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected all claims made by the petitioner for additional costs incurred on account of variation in soil strata as indicated in tender documents as encountered by the petitioner. The petitioner had claimed that it had incurred additional costs, inter alia, on the ground that subsequent soil investigation indicated that the first ten meter of the soil was much weaker than as indicated in the report forming part of the tender documents and, therefore, the petitioner had to incur additional expenditure for reinforcement of concrete and for taking other measures. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the same on the ground that the contract between the parties expressly provided that the contractor would carry out an independent investigation of the soil and no claim whatsoever on account of discrepancy between the sub surface condition, as actually encountered and as provided in the tender documents, would be entertained.

Factual Background

3. On 02.01.2013, the respondent (hereafter 'DMRC') awarded the work of “Design and Construction of main viaduct, Ramp on both sides, Mukundpur Elevated station including Architectural Finishing Works, Auto Coach Washing Plant Platform and Entry/Exit line to Mukundpur Depot (Scope of work starts from Ch.334.65M) on Mukundpur-Yamuna Vihar Corridor (Line-7) of Phase-III Delhi” (hereafter 'the works'). The value of the works was estimated at Rs. 125 crores and it was awarded to the petitioner at a contract value of Rs.123,40,44,611/-. The works were commenced on 07.01.2013 and the stipulated date of completion was fixed to be 31.05.2016.

4. The parties entered into an agreement for the aforesaid contract on 12.02.2013 (Contract no.CC-14) (hereafter 'the Agreement').

5. Tender documents were available till 16.08.2012 and the tender for the work was to be submitted by 15.09.2012 (subsequently revised to 17.09.2013). The tender documents also included a geo technical report as to the soil conditions.

6. On 11.12.2013, the petitioner sent a letter to DMRC stating that the soil data provided in the tender documents did not match the soil investigation report received by the petitioner, which showed that the first ten meters of the soil was much weaker than what was indicated in the soil report forming a part of the tender documents.

7. DMRC responded on 23.12.2013 refuting the claims made by the petitioner in its letter dated 11.12.2013 and further referring to Clause no. 2.1.5(n) and 2.3 of the Agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The Arbitral Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on 03.09.2015. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the oral evidence was not required and the arbitration be conducted on the basis of documentary evidence provided by the parties.

8. The arbitral proceedings culminated in the impugned award.

9. The petitioner had set up a case that the time period provided for carrying out soil investigation was a month and this did not afford any of the bidders an opportunity to carry out the soil invest