SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 952

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Shruti Arora, Mr. Aakashi Lodha, Ms. Sukrit Seth, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Suspension of contract works - The dispute arose from an arbitral award regarding project suspension caused by environmental protests. The court assessed the employment of contractual clauses regarding suspension and frustration. The tribunal found that work was suspended, not abandoned, and awarded compensation to contractor. (Paras 1-66)

(B) Contract Law - Provisions for suspension - The court held that the conditions for suspension and frustration under the GCC were not met, and the contractor was entitled to various claims under specific contractual provisions. The tribunal’s decision was upheld concerning the legal interpretations of the applicable clauses. (Paras 27-64)

Facts of the case:
Disputes emerged between the two contracting parties over the Loharinag Pala Hydro Project after suspension due to environmental protests. Claims raised by the contractor included idle charges, expenses, and interest for the suspension period. The employer contested these claims based on accusations of abandonment. (Paras 1-18)

Findings of Court:
The tribunal determined the nature of the project suspension, awarding various claims based on the contractor's demands and relevant contract provisions. The court affirmed the tribunal's approach and findings regarding claims under the COPA despite legal challenges from the employer. (Paras 11-66)

Issues: The court considered whether the contractor’s claims were based on a proper understanding of the contractual clauses concerning suspension, and whether the tribunal correctly interpreted the definition and implications of frustration of contract. (Paras 27-64)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a clear distinction exists between suspension and abandonment of a contract. The tribunal appropriately examined the claims in light of existing jurisprudence on contract interpretation relevant to similar disputes. (Paras 11-66)

Result: The employer’s petition was partially allowed, and the arbitral award regarding interest prior to the award date was set aside, while affirming other substantive elements of the award.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top