The interpretation of contractual clauses must align with their plain language, and claims for damages must be supported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner (hereinafter ‘Chintels’) 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 03.05.2019 (hereinafter ‘the impugned award’) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Mr. J.D. Pahuja, Mr. N.N. Chakraborty and Mr. Sant Bhushan Lal as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereinafter the ‘Arbitral Tribunal’). The impugned award was delivered by majority with Mr. J.D. Pahuja rendering a partially dissenting opinion.

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with a contract dated 14.03.2011 (hereinafter the ‘Contract’).

Factual Context

3. Tenders were invited by Chintels for the works relating to Civil, Structure, Electrical Conduiting and Finishing Work for a real estate development known as Chintels Paradiso, Sector-109, Gurgaon (hereinafter the ‘Project’) comprising of nine state-of-the-art modern towers with 542 apartments, which were to be constructed in two phases. Phase-I included construction of Towers D, E, F, G and H (hereinafter ‘Phase-I’) and Phase-II included construction of towers A, B, C and J (hereinafter ‘Phase-II’).

4. The respondent (hereinafter ‘BBPL’) submitted its bid for the Project and by a Work Order dated 01.03.2011, was awarded the works for Phase-I of the Project for a contract price of Rs. 41,55,82,200/-. In the terms of the Work Order, the stipulated time for completion of Phase- I of the Project was twenty-four months; that is, the works were to be completed on or before 01.03.2013.

5. Thereafter, on 14.03.2011, the parties formally entered into the Contract.

6. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with the construction of Phase-I of the Project. (Work Order dated 01.03.2011).

7. On 22.03.2011, the Contract was amended to a limited extent and Chintels undertook to provide reinforcement steel to BBPL free of cost. Thus, the contract price was increased to Rs. 48,02,84,152/-.

8. During the years 2011-2012, Chintels claimed that the progress with respect to Phase-I of the Project was slow and this was attributable to BBPL. Further, till April 2012, BBPL had managed to pour concrete for only 2 out of the 40 required slabs for Phase-I of the Project.

9. On 22.01.2013, Chintels complained regarding slow pace of Phase–I of the Project and sought for rectification of certain items.

10. Phase-I of the Project could not be completed within the stipulated period. On 18.03.2013, BBPL sought for an extension of time from 01.03.2013 till 22.08.2014 for completing Phase-1.

11. By a letter dated 15.04.2013, Chintels agreed to grant an extension of time upto 13.11.2013 without the imposition of any liquidated damages. However, Phase-I of the Project could not be completed within the extended time period as well.

12. Apparently, the parties attempted to resolve the disputes pertaining to the Project and exchanged a draft agreement titled “ADDENDUM TO THE CONSTRUCTION DATED 14th MARCH 2011.” However, the said draft agreement was not executed.

13. By an e-mail dated 23.04.2014, all the remaining works apart from concreting in Phase-I of the Project was removed from the scope of work of BBPL and awarded to a third-party.

14. Chintels, thereafter, noticed certain cracks in balconies, beams, and staircases of towers D and E of Phase-I of the Project and it claimed that a report by an independent laboratory dated 09.05.2016, showed that the cracks had occurred due to excessive chlorination of the water that was used by BBPL for mixing the concrete. BBPL disputes that the defects had developed due to bad workmanship or reasons attributable to it.

15. During the years 2013 to 2016, rectification work was conducted by BBPL. In February 2017, the bank guarant