IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
National Highways Authority Of India - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Hindustan Construction Co Ltd. - Respondent
O. M. P. (Comm) 153/2020
Decided On : 12-01-2022
NHAI - Arbitration Award Challenge - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Dispute no. 5 - 44.1, 6.4, 12.2, 42.2 of the GCC - Clause 110 of the Technical Specifications and Clause 1.3.3 of ITB - Clause 70.5 of the COPA - Clause 51.1 and 51.2 of the GCC - Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - M/s Kailash Nath and Associates v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation: 2002 (3) Arb LR 631 - M/s National Highways Authority of India v. CEC-HCC Joint Venture: FAO(OS)(COMM) 130 of 2017 - National Highways Authority of India v. Patel - KNR (JV): OMP (COMM) 201/2018 - HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) v. GAIL (India) Ltd.: (2018) 12 SCC 471 - McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd & ORs. : (2006) 11 SCC 181 - Canara Nidhi Ltd. v. M. Shashikala & ORs. : (2019) 9 SCC 462 - Thyssen Krupp Werkstoffe GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd: FAO (OS) No. 258/2010, decided on 07.04.2011 - Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ansaldo Energia SPA & Anr.: (2018) 16 SCC 661 - Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.: (2021) SCC OnLine SC 695 - Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja: (2004) 5 SCC 109
Fact of the Case:
NHAI challenged an Arbitration Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) regarding additional costs incurred during the extended period of a construction project. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the delays were attributable to NHAI and awarded compensation to HCC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Arbitral Tribunal's decision was not based on any material or evidence and was not ex facie erroneous, thus immune from challenge. However, the court set aside the award for loss of earning capacity and profit due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the attribution of delays, entitlement to compensation for additional costs, and the quantification of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Arbitral Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on relevant material and within its jurisdiction. However, the award for loss of earning capacity and profit was set aside due to lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent that the award for loss of earning capacity and profit was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter 'NHAI') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an Arbitral Award dated 05.06.2013 (hereinafter 'the impugned award')passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three members, Shri P. Sridharan, Sh. Pawan Kumar, and Shri D. Sree Ramamurthy as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereinafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal'). The impugned award was delivered by Shri P. Sridharan and Shri D. Sree Ramamurthy. Sh. Pawan Kumar entered a separate dissenting opinion.
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation with an agreement dated 26.02.2005 (hereinafter 'the Agreement'). By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,69,42,964/- towards the balance outstanding amount for the work of 40 mm thick Bituminous concrete (Dispute no. 4), Rs. 134,75,04,491/- towards the additional costs incurred in the extended period from 15.11.2007 till 23.11.2010 and, Rs. 11,08,93,494 towards the additional costs incurred in the extended period from 24.11.2020 till 02.05.2011 (Dispute no. 5). The Arbitral Tribunal further awarded simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the pre-award period and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the award till its realization, in case the awarded amount was not paid by NHAI within a period of ninety days.
3. This Court had examined the petitioner's challenge to the impugned award in respect of Dispute No. 4 and by an order dated 13.09.2013, rejected the same. Thus, the principal controversy that remains to be addressed relates to the award for additional costs incurred during the extended period of the contract on account of the delays (referred as Dispute no. 5).
Factual Context
4. NHAI invited tenders for the works regarding "Construction of Chennai Bypass Phase - II Connecting NH-4 & NH-5 and Widening of Chennai Bypass Phase -I connecting NH-45 & NH-4 in Tamil Nadu" (hereinafter 'the Project'), on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Instructions to Bidders (ITB).
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid invitation to tender, the respondent (hereinafter 'HCC') submitted its bid for executing the Project on 15.12.2004. HCC's bid was accepted by NHAI and a contract for implementation of the Project for an amount of Rs. 404,97,93,145/- was awarded to HCC by a Letter of Acceptance dated 25.01.2005 (hereinafter the 'LOA')
6. In terms of the LOA, NHAI called upon HCC to furnish a -Performance Security in the form of an unconditional Bank Guarantee of an amount equivalent to 10% of the contract price, in accordance with Sub-clause 35 of Section I of the ITB and Sub-clause 10 of Section III, Volume I of the Tender Documents, within a period of twenty-eight days after receipt of the LOA.
7. Thereafter, on 26.02.2005, the parties entered into the Agreement for execution of the said Project. In terms of the Agreement, HCC was required to complete the Project within a period of thirty months from the date of commencement of the works. Further, in terms of Clause 47.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (hereinafter 'GCC'), HCC was liable to pay liquidated damages to NHAI in the event of failure to achieve substantial completion within the stipulated period. It was stipulated that the works would be completed on or before 14.11.2007.
8. On 15.05.2005, the Engineer issued a notice to HCC to commence the work. The Project would be completed within the said period of thirty months thereafter.
9. HCC claims that due to certain impediments like delay caused in execution of road works, structures, Adayar Bridge, Porur Bridge, Grade Separator- 1, Cooum Bridge, elevated corridor, rail over bridge, Grade Separator- 2, underpasses and bandas, it was unable to execute the wor
The main legal point established is that an arbitral award must be based on relevant material and evidence, and claims for loss of profit must be substantiated with evidence of missed opportunities.
The inapplicability of the ground of patent illegality to international commercial arbitration and the importance of interpreting specific contractual clauses in determining the validity of claims an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 to an international commercial arbitration, and the ....
The need for evidence to establish loss of profits and the court's discretion to modify the interest rate as agreed upon by the parties.
The court affirmed that arbitral awards are upheld unless blatant illegality is shown, emphasizing the tribunal's final authority under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
An expulsion under a contract must have legitimate causes, and unjustified actions by one party render such expulsion illegal, reaffirming constraints under arbitration frameworks.
The arbitral Tribunal found NHaI's actions to expel the respondent from the site was unjustified and illegal based on various grounds, including the delay in granting Extension of Time (EOT) and the ....
Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of contractual provisions in arbitration disputes.
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.