The court rejected the argument that findings in a subsequent award would render the previous award illegal or contrary to law. The findings of the second Arbitral Tribunal do not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - Arbitration was to be the panacea for the woes of litigation. As an ''alternate dispute resolution'' mechanism, arbitration has however become complex, owing to several reasons such as long delays, challenges in enforcement, high costs etc., One other reason rendering arbitral processes complex is ''MULTIPLICITY'' - multiple invocations, multiple references, multiple Arbitral Tribunals, multiple Awards and multiple challenges, between the same parties, in respect of the same contract or the same series of contracts. Repeated steps have been taken in judgments and by amendments to the law, to make the system efficient, but more needs to be done.

Brief Facts

2. In the present case, a contract was executed between Gammon-Atlanta JV, a Joint Venture of Gammon India Ltd. and Atlanta Ltd. (hereinafter "Contractor") and National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter "NHAI") on 23 rd December, 2000 for the work of widening to 4/6 lanes and strengthening of existing 2 lane carriageway of NH-5 in the State of Orissa from km 387.700 to 414.000 (Khurda to Bhubaneswar) Contract Pkg. OR-1 (hereinafter "Project"). The value of the work was approximately Rs. 118.9 crores. The date of commencement of the contract was fixed as 15 th January, 2001 and the project was to be executed within 36 months i.e., by 14 th January, 2004.

3. The Project was not executed within the prescribed time. Extensions for completing the Project were granted till 31 st December, 2006. Vehicular traffic was allowed on the main carriageway in March, 2007 and according to the Contractor, this amounted to a deemed ''taking over'' of the carriageway by NHAI and hence completion.

AwardNo.1 - 5 th October, 2007

4. During the course of execution of the Project, disputes had arisen between the parties in respect of some claims. The same were raised both by the Contractor and by NHAI. On 1 st August, 2004, the Disputes Review Board (hereinafter "DRB ") was constituted in terms of sub-clause 67.1 of the Conditions of Particular Application (hereinafter, "COPA"). The DRB is stated to have expressly communicated its inability to resolve issues pertaining to a period earlier to its constitution. The DRB thus did not resolve the issues and accordingly, the Contractor invoked arbitration under sub-clause 67.3 of COP A vide notice dated 27 th January, 2005. The relevant claims referred for arbitration are as under:

"Claim 2.1: Compensation for losses incurred on account of overhead and expected profit

Claim 2.2: Compensation for reduced productivity of machinery and equipment deployed.

Claim 2.3: Revision of rates to cover for increase of cost of materials and labour during extended period over and above the relief available under escalation (price adjustment) provision in the agreement."

5. The Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of Mr. P.B. Vijay, Mr. C.C. Bhattacharya and Mr. R.T. Atre, was appointed and the award was rendered on 5 th October, 2007 (hereinafter "Award No. 1"). The findings in Award No. 1 with respect to Claim Nos. 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3 are as under:

Claim No.2 was found to not be barred by limitation as even though the DRB was constituted on 1 st August, 2004, it expressed its inability to give its recommendation only on 17 th November, 2004. Thus, the limitation period of 56 days was considered to begin from 17 th November, 2004, making the notice dated 27 th January, 2005 within the prescribed limitation period.

The Contractor claimed compensation on the basis of the following six alleged breaches by NHAI: (1) Late appointment of key personnel, (2) Delay in payments, (3) Virtual suspension of BC work from December, 2003 to March, 2005, (4) Failure to sanction adequate extension of time, (5) Failure to constitute Dispute Review Board and (6) Delay in handing over of site.

As regards the first five alleged breaches, the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter, "AT") found that the actions of NHAI either did not materially affect the progress of the wo