The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's deference to the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal on delay and the interpretation and application of relevant contract clauses in the context of the delay dispute.

Navin Chawla, J.

IA No. 2962/2019 (Exemption) in O.M.P. (COMM) 85/2019

IA No. 3058/2019 (Exemption) in O.M.P. (COMM) 88/2019 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

O.M.P. (COMM) 85/2019 &

O.M.P. (COMM) 88/2019 & IA No. 3059/2019 (Stay)

1. These two petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) challenging the Arbitral Award dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Agreement dated 15.06.2001 for Four Laning of Km 180.000 to 199.200 of Bangalore-Salem-Madurai Section of NH-7 in the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. In this order National Highways Authority of India shall be referred to as the petitioner and M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Limited shall be referred to as the respondent.

3. The Arbitral Tribunal has given the time line relevant to the award of Contract and completion thereof, some of the relevant dates of which are taken as under:-

“Date of Issue of notice to commence the work	10.08.2001
Date of Commencement the work	31.08.2001
Period of completion of work	24 Months
Stipulated date of completion of work	30.08.2003
Actual date of Completion	31.12.2009
Total Period taken to complete the work	100 Months”

4. The primary dispute between the parties is to the responsibility for causing delay in execution of the work. The Arbitral Tribunal, relying heavily on the recommendation of the Engineer and the Project Director for grant of extension of time to the respondent till 31.12.2009, that is the actual date of completion of work, without levy of liquidated damages, has held that out of the total delay of 76 months, while 45 months delay was attributable solely to the petitioner, the delay of 31 months was attributable jointly to the petitioner and the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has erred in placing reliance on the recommendations of the Engineer and the Project Director. He submits that the recommendations of the Engineer and the Project Director were not accepted by the Executive Committee of the petitioner as it was found that the reasons for delay were attributable to the respondents financial constraints and, infact, stoppage of work was attributable completely to such constraints.

6. He further submits that in terms of Clause 44.4 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), the Contractor, that is the respondent, was not entitled to compensation incase it did not give early warning of a Compensation Event to the petitioner. In the present case, the respondent for the first time informed the petitioner of Compensation Events only by the letter dated 18.03.2003, that is almost on the expiry of the scheduled completion period. The respondent, therefore, should have been held ineligible to grant of any compensation for its failure to comply with Clause 44.4 of the GCC.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Engineer and the Project Director had infact recommended extension of time for the full period of 76 months to be granted to the respondent. This was after taking into account the delay which was stated to be attributable to the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal has, upon analyzing the causes for delay, concluded that 45 months delay was attributable solely to the petitioner and 31 months delay was attributable concurrently to both the parties. This being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act.

8. As far as Clause 44.4 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the delay was mainly on ground of failure of the petitioner to hand over the complete land required fo