The court clarified the interpretation of Clause 27.2.2 of the Concession Agreement and emphasized the importance of adhering to the plain reading of contractual terms. The court also highlighted the application of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in determining reasonable compensation for breach of contract.

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as to the 'Act') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the work of Four Laning of Reengus Sikar section from Km 298.075 near Madhopur Junction to Km 341.047 of NH-11 in the State of Rajasthan awarded by the petitioner to the respondent under the Concession Agreement dated 26.04.2011.

2. Some of the undisputed features of the contract as also the dates relevant thereto given by the Arbitral Tribunal itself are reproduced hereinunder:

i.	Authority	NHAI
ii	Concessionaire (SPV)	RSEL
iii	Estimated Cost, as per RFP	Rs.333.51 Cr.
iv	Total Project Cost as per C.A. (cl.48.1)	Rs.227.51 Cr.
v	Date of signing of Concession Agreement	26.04.2011
vi	Schedule 4 Lanning date from Appointed Date (cl.5.1 of Schedule G)	910 days
vii	Concession Period including construction period to be reckoned from Appointed Date (cl.3.1.1)	17 years
viii	Project Highway length	43.887 km
ix	Appointed Date to be declared/notified by the Authority within 180 days from date of signing of Agreement (cl.4.1.2 & Article 24)	25.10.2011
x	Appointed Date declared/notified by Authority	05.03.2012 (delay of 132 days)
xi	Schedule Project Completion Date (SPCD)	31.08.2014
xii	Effective Date of Provisional Certificate, i.e. COD originally recommended by IE to the Authority on 05.02.2014 for completion of 91.07% length of Project Highway, i.e. 39.532 km. and re-confirmed on 02.05.2104 (c/.14.3 & 15.1)	14.12.2013
xiii	Effective Date of Provisional Certificate, i.e. COD as issued by the Independent Engineer on 25.09.2014 by deferring the date of COD in original recommendation.	22.09.2014
xiv	Amount of each (Semi-Annual)Annuity (Cl.27.1.1. & Schedule M)	Rs.18,77,22,277/-
xv	Max Amount of Bonus-equivalent to one Annuity payable	Rs.18,77,22,277/- for six months (cl.8.1.)

3. The first challenge of the petitioner is to the grant of Claim no.6 in favour of the respondent. Under Claim no.6, the respondent had claimed payment of Annuity for 260 days from 14.12.2013, which is the Commercial Operation Date (COD) to 31.08.2014, which was the Scheduled Project Completion Date (SPCD).

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no challenge made in the present petition with respect to COD being 14.12.2013. The only limited challenge to the grant of Claim no.6 is that in terms of Clause 27.2.1 of the Concession Agreement, the respondent, even though it achieved the COD prior to SPCD, was not entitled to the grant of any additional Annuity due to such event. The only benefit that the respondent was entitled to out of such event was in form of Bonus under Clause 28.1 of the Agreement, which the respondent has been separately granted under the Impugned Award as Claim no.1 on which no challenge has been made by the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded Claim no.6 by interpreting Clause 27.1.1, 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 of the Agreement. Such interpretation being plausible in nature, it would not be open for this Court to interfere with the same. He further submits that even if this Court finds any ambiguity in the Concession Agreement, though in the submission of the respondent there is none, the Agreement has to be interpreted against the petitioner.

6. Before I consider the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, it would be advisable for me to first reproduce Article 27.1 and 27.2 of the Agreement