Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. An issue of far reaching importance is called for decision in the present case. The issue is that can contractual clauses dis-entitle a person from claiming damages which a person is otherwise entitled to under law. Putting it differently, can a person who is guilty of breach of contract and is consequentially liable in law to pay damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act or other charges under Section 55 of the Contract Act 1872, can prevent the aggrieved party from claiming the same by contractually so providing i.e. can the Arbitrator be prevented from awarding the damages/losses simply because clauses in the contract prohibits award of damages/losses.

2. The relevant contractual clauses in this case are Clauses 11A to 11C and which clauses read as under:

"11. Time, delay and extension. - (A) Time is of the essence of the contract and is specified in the contract documents or in each individual works order. As soon as possible, after contract is let or any substantial work order is placed and before work under it is begun, the GE and the contractor shall agree upon the time and progress chart. The chart shall be prepared in direct relation to the time stated in the contract documents or the works order for completion of the individual items thereof and/or the contract or works order as a whole. It shall include the forecast of the dates for commencement and completion of the various trades, processes or sections of the work, and shall be amended as may be required by agreement between the GE and the contractor within the limitation of time imposed in the contract documents or works order. If the work be delayed:

(i) by force majeure, or

(ii) by reason of abnormally bad weather, or

(iii) by reason of serious loss or damage by fire, or

(iv) by reason of civil commotion, local combination of workmen, strike or lockout, affecting any of the tradesmen employed on the work, or

(v) by reason of delay on part of nominated sub-contractors, or nominated suppliers which the contractor has, in the opinion of GE, taken all practicable steps to avoid, or reduce, or

(vi) by reason of delay on the part of contractors or tradesmen engaged by the Government in executing work not forming part of the contract, or * * *

(viii) by reason of any other cause, which in the absolute discretion of the accepting officer is beyond the contractor's control; then in any such case the officer hereinafter mentioned may make fair and reasonable extension in the completion dates of individual items or groups of items of works for which separate periods of completion are mentioned in the contract documents or works order, as applicable. * * *

(B) If the works be delayed:

(a) by reason of non-availability of government stores in Schedule B or

(b) by reason of non-availability or breakdown of government tools and plant listed in Schedule C; then, in any such event, notwithstanding the provisions hereinbefore contained, the accepting officer may in his discretion, grant such extension of time as may appear reasonable to him and the same shall be communicated to the contractor by the GE in writing. The decision so communicated shall be final and binding and the contractor shall be bound to complete the works within such extended time.

(C) No claim in respect of compensation or otherwise, howsoever arising, as a result of extensions granted under Conditions (A) and (B) above shall be admitted."

On the basis of the aforesaid clauses, it is contended that even if there is a breach of contract by the objector/Union of India in causing delays by its own faults, even then, damages cannot be claimed by a contractor and such damages cannot be awarded by the Arbitrator.

3. The issue involved in the present case has become further complex because of two judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with very much these Clauses 11A to 11C. Whereas in the case of Ramnath International Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2007)2SCC 453, the Supreme Court while interp