IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
M/s Kmc Construction Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority Of India - Respondent
Original Miscellaneous Petition (COMM.) No. 458 of 2020, Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 2021 & 2649 of 202
Decided On : 23-12-2021
NHAI awarded a contract to KMC for a project. KMC completed the project before the stipulated date but faced issues with payments and invoked arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected some of KMC's claims. KMC challenged the rejection of its claims in court. The court examined each claim and found that the rejection of KMC's Claim No.3 for escalation, Claim No.5 for additional payment, Claim No.13 for early completion bonus, and Claim No.19 for loss due to non-release of Performance Bank Guarantee was not illegal. However, the court set aside the rejection of KMC's claim for interest at the contracted rate and for the period when the arbitration proceedings were at a standstill.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereafter KMC) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning an Arbitral Award dated 24.09.2019 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by three members (hereafter the Arbitral Tribunal). KMC also impugns an order dated 21.11.2019 (hereafter the revised order), whereby its application under Section 33 of the A&C Act was rejected.
2. KMC challenges the impugned award in respect of its Claims Nos. 3, 5, 13, 19 and 22.
3. Briefly stated, the facts that are necessary to address the controversy are stated hereunder.
3.1 NHAI, by a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 22.08.2001, awarded a contract for the work of Widening to four lanes and strengthening of the existing two lane carriageway between Km 278/000 to Km 340/000 of Udaipur-Ratanpur-Gandhinagar Section of NH-8 in Rajasthan, package no. UG-1 (hereafter the Project) to KMC. Subsequently, the parties entered into an agreement dated 05.10.2001 (hereafter the Agreement). In terms of the Agreement, KMC agreed to execute the works at a Contract Price of Rs. 164,75,76,353/-. The works for the Project were to commence on 30.10.2001 and completed by 30.04.2004.
3.2 It is KMCs case that NHAI had failed to handover the site to it and had provided an incorrect Detailed Project Report (DPR). Despite this, KMC completed the project two months prior to the stipulated date of completion. The works were completed on 28.02.2004 at a Contract Price of Rs. 248,00,00,000/- against the original Contract Price of Rs. 164,75,76,353/-. KMC submitted its completion statement on 08.05.2004. It is KMCs case that the Engineer did not process the payments due to it and extended the defect liability period. Finally, the Engineer issued the Defect Liability Certificate on 24.05.2006. The Engineer issued a Statement at Completion proposing a recovery of Rs. 18,16,34,122/- against the Final Bill of Rs. 70,51,84,650/-. Further, the Engineer did not give its decision on the other sums payable to KMC.
3.3 NHAI invoked the Performance Bank Guarantee furnished by KMC in the sum of Rs. 16,47,57,636/-.
3.4 In view of the disputes, KMC invoked the Arbitration Agreement by a letter dated 16.09.2006 and nominated Sh PV Rama Raju as an Arbitrator. NHAI nominated Sh VS Dixit as its nominee Arbitrator. Both nominated Arbitrators appointed Sh Prafulla Kumar as the Presiding Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 12.11.2006.
3.5 In the meanwhile, KMC also filed a Writ Petition (bearing W.P. No. 18269/2006) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking interdiction of the invocation of the Bank Guarantee. By an order dated 29.11.2006, that High Court restrained NHAI from encashing the aforesaid Bank Guarantee. NHAI appealed against the aforesaid order before the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Court ordered KMC to keep the Bank Guarantee alive during the course of the arbitration proceedings.
3.6 Before the Arbitral Tribunal, KMC raised twenty-two claims aggregating to Rs. 135,96,28,549/-. NHAI filed its Statement of Defence and also raised counter-claims.
3.7 By a letter dated 11.10.2013 addressed to the Arbitral Tribunal, both parties requested the Arbitral Tribunal to keep the arbitral proceedings in abeyance, to enable them to amicably resolve the disputes by Conciliation before the three CGM Committee and the Independent Settlement Advisory Committee (ISAC). However, the Conciliation was not successful and by a letter dated 23.06.2015, KMC requested the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings. Mr VS Dixit recused from the Arbitral Tribunal and Mr Ninan Koshi was appointed by NHAI in place of him. Mr Ninan Koshi and KMCs Arbitrator jointly appointed Mr SC Sharma as the Presiding Arbitrator on 19.04.2016.
4. On 24.09.20
Ambica Construction vs. Union of India: (2017) 14 SCC 323
Sayeed Ahmed And Company vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.: (2009) 12 SCC 26
Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions vs. Divisional Railway Manager Works
Union of India vs. Bright Power Projects India P. Ltd.: (2015) 9 SCC 695
The court held that the rejection of KMC's claims for escalation, additional payment, early completion bonus, and loss due to non-release of Performance Bank Guarantee was not illegal. However, the c....
The court emphasized that arbitration awards must adhere strictly to contract terms regarding payment and interest, rejecting arbitrary reductions of entitlement.
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.
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 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 court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
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.