IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Patel Engineering Limited - Respondent
O.M.P. (Comm) 504 of 2020
Decided On : 26-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the arbitration case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the contract packages. (Para 4) |
| 3. suspensions and disputes arising from external factors. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. arguments against the arbitral award concerning claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. judicial consideration of the arbitration context. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. determination of legal grounds related to pre-award interest. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 7. concluding remarks on claims and enforcement. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT
Judgment Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereinafter 'NTPC') 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 14.01.2020 (hereinafter 'the impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted of Dr. P.C. Markanda, ER. H.S. Dogra andER S.P. Banwait as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with the contract for execution of the "Penstok & Power House Package" for the Hydroelectric Power Project across river Bhagirathi in District Uttarkashi (hereafter 'Loharinag Pala HE Project'). The parties had entered into the formal agreement embodying the contract on 30.11.2006.
3. The controversy in the present case arises in the following context:
3.1 The main civil works of the Loharinag Pala HE Project were divided into the four packages:
Contract Package 1 : Construction of Adits to HRT.
Contract Package 2 : Construction of Head Race Tunnel
Contract Package 3 : Construction of Penstock and Power House.
Contract Package 4 : Construction of Barrage and Desilting Chamber.
3.2 On 24.10.2005, NTPC invited tenders for the work of construction of 'Penstock & Powerhouse Package' for Loharinag Pala H.E Project (4 x 150-MW) on the basis of International Competitive Bidding.
3.3 The respondent (hereafter ' PEL') submitted its bid, which was accepted and, on 23.09.2006, NTPC issued the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) in favour of PEL. In terms of the said LoA, the work was to be completed within a period of forty-five months at an agreed consideration of ^2,35,26,42,768/- and Euro 22,699,157.84/-, after deduction of 3.40% as discount as per offer plus cost of Schedule of Day-Work of ^55,77,000/-. Subsequently, NTPC issued an amendment and, the total cost of work was increased from ^371,44,99,171.73/- to ^377,60,82,087.11/-.
3.4 Thereafter, on 30.11.2006, NTPC and PEL entered into the agreement for "Construction of Pen stock & Powerhouse Package for Loharinag Pala Hydro Electric Power Project (4 x 150-MW)" (hereinafter 'the Contract').
3.5 PEL was also separately awarded the contract package for construction of the Head Race Tunnel.
3.6 In February 2009, reports were received that certain activists were agitating for closure of the Loharinag Pala HE Project. One Professor G.D. Agarwal, who was opposing the execution of the project, had gone on a hunger strike in protest against the project in question.
3.7 On 19.02.2009, due to the hunger strike by Prof. G.D. Agarwal to oppose the execution of the project, the Ministry of Power, Government of India decided to suspend the work at the Loharinag-Pala HE Project.
3.8 On 20.02.2009, looking at the sensitivity of the issue, the Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred under Sections 3 (1) and 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter the ' EPA Act') constituted "The National Ganga River Basin Authority" (NGRBA) under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, with the objective of taking measures for the abatement of pollution and the conservation of the river Ganga with sustainable development goals.
3.9 The aforesaid decision of the Ministry of Power to suspend the Project was challe
Ambica Construction vs. Union of India
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. THDC India Ltd.
Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.: (2018) 9 SCC 266
Sayeed Ahmed and Co. vs. State of U.P: 2009 (12) SCC 26
Sri Chittaranjan Maity vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 611
Arbitral tribunals have discretion over fact-finding, and courts should not re-evaluate evidence unless decisions violate public policy or involve patent illegality.
Arbitration - Application for setting aside of arbitral Award - Award of interest at rate of 18% per annum from date of award is not in consonance with observations made by Arbitral Tribunal, which r....
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.
Contractual clauses distinguishing between outstanding amounts and claims; only adjudicated debts are actionable.
The arbitral tribunal can award pendente lite interest unless expressly prohibited by the contractual agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the arbitral Tribunal is entitled to substantial discretion in awarding interest, and the court does not sit as the first appe....
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....
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.