The Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short `the Act') challenges the impugned award dated 18th September, 2020 passed by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal (in short `the AT'), insofar as it rejects three claims of the Petitioner.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. On 6th May, 2014, a tender notice was issued by CEE/Con/Bilaspur, South East Central (in short `the tender'). The Petitioner participated in the tender and submitted a bid.

2.2. Pursuant to post-tender negotiations between the parties, on 19th September, 2014, the Respondent accepted Petitioner's bid and awarded the contract vide Letter of Acceptance (in short `the LoA') No. EL/Con/BSP/904/1166 dated 14th October, 2014 at Rs.14,11,06,469/- with a completion period of eighteen months i.e., by 13th April, 2016.

2.3. In terms of the LoA, the Petitioner furnished a Performance Bank Guarantee (in short `the PBG') numbered 5073214BG000920 dated 7th November, 2014 for Rs.70,55,323/- in favour of the Respondent for fulfillment of the contractual obligations under the contract. The parties signed a Contract Agreement numbered 18/CEE/CON/SECR/BSP/2014 on 11th December, 2014, being the contract that is the subject matter of the present proceedings. In furtherance thereto, the Petitioner also submitted a Bank Guarantee (in short `the BG') numbered 5073215BG0000037 dated 29th January, 2015 for an amount of Rs.1 crore to the Respondent for obtaining on account payment.

2.4. On 2nd February, 2015, the Respondent directed the Petitioner to make certain changes due to change in track center from 6.5m to 5.9m between CPH-SGRD. Subsequently, in meetings dated 14th February, 2015 and 14th April, 2015, the Respondent directed further changes to the scope of work and planning, which were accepted by the Petitioner.

2.5. Thereafter, the Respondent levied a penalty and made deductions from the Petitioner's running bill no. 2 raised on 31st March, 2015. The Petitioner questioned the deductions and requested that the Respondent reconsider the decision and further explained that the reasons for delay were beyond the control of the Petitioner.

2.6. Thereafter, the Respondent vide letter dated 15th February, 2016, issued a 48 hours' notice to the Petitioner. Then on the Petitioner's request, the Respondent granted an extension of the date of completion up to 14th October, 2016 and imposed a token penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-.

2.7. On 24th August, 2016 the Respondent issued a seven days' notice which was replied to by the Petitioner on 5th September, 2016 stating that the team was working on the site and that the delay and temporary halt of work was due to certain unavoidable circumstances. Subsequently, the Respondent issued another 48 hours' notice to the Petitioner by way of a letter dated 30th September, 2016.

2.8. Thereafter, there were multiple extensions of the date of completion, the last extension being up to 31st October, 2018. All the extensions were granted without LD and with PVC. Eventually, vide letter dated 18th October, 2018 (received by the Petitioner on 22nd October, 2018), the Petitioner was issued a 48 hours' notice, alleging that no action to commence the work/show adequate progress of the work had been done by the Petitioner [In short `the impugned notice']. In response thereto, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 23rd October, 2018, stating that it had not received the seven days' notice from the Respondent and also questioned the reason for issuance of the impugned notice contending that the work at all the stations was underway in full swing. It was further contended that the 48 hours' notice was served without serving the seven days' notice, i.e., in conflict with the contractual scheme.

2.9. The Respondent, after issuing the impugned notice, issued a Termination Notice dated 20th October, 2018, which was receive