IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
IJM Gayatri JV - Appellant
Versus
National Highways Authority of India - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 92 of 2020 & CM Appl. 4216 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4217 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2022
Arbitration - NHAI - Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 34
Fact of the Case:
NHAI issued a tender for a road project, delays occurred, and disputes arose between NHAI and IJM. IJM filed claims for various compensations. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed the claims, and NHAI challenged the award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the award for loss of profits and modified the interest awarded, finding that the claim for loss of profits did not overlap with the claim for overhead expenses and that IJM failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the loss of profits. The court also upheld the interest awarded at a reduced rate.
Issues: Overlap of claims for loss of profits and overhead expenses, sufficiency of evidence for loss of profits, and reasonableness of the interest rate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no overlap between the claims for loss of profits and overhead expenses, emphasized the need for evidence to establish loss of profits, and upheld the interest rate as agreed upon by the parties.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment in respect of the interest awarded and disposing of all pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. M/s IJM-Gayatri (JV) (hereinafter `IJM') has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter `the A&C Act') impugning a judgement dated 12.05.2020 (hereinafter `the impugned judgement') passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby National Highway Authority of India's (hereinafter `NHAI') application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 09.08.2017 (hereinafter `the impugned award'), was partially allowed.
Factual Context
2. NHAI issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for execution of the work relating to "widening of 4/6 lanes and upgrading of existing 2 lane Road of NH-5 in the State of Andhra Pradesh from Km. 291.000 to Km. 358.000 of Ongole-Chilakaluripet-Contract Package AP-13" (hereinafter `the Project'), on the terms and conditions stipulated thereon. Pursuant to the said NIT, IJM submitted its bid for executing the Project works. IJM's bid was accepted by NHAI and by a Letter of Acceptance dated 20.04.2001 (hereinafter `the LoA'), the contract for implementation of the Project was awarded to IJM for a consideration of Rs.225,39,46,841/-.
3. Subsequently, on 25.05.2001, the parties entered into a formal agreement [being Agreement no. 0040 /NH- 5/GQ/GM (E-l) /2001] (hereinafter `the Agreement'). In terms of the Agreement, the works were to be completed within a period of thirty-one months from the commencement date and the defect liability period was stipulated as twelve months.
4. Thereafter, on 29.05.2001, NHAI issued a notice to proceed with the work, in accordance with Clause 41.1 of the Special Conditions of Contract (hereinafter `the SCC'). In terms of the said notice, the scheduled date of commencement of work was stipulated as 01.06.2001 and the scheduled date of completion was stipulated as 31.12.2003.
5. The Agreement provided for sectional completion of the Project and was divided into three sections, that are, Section A: Km 292.000 to Km 300.000, Section B: Km 300.000 to Km 330.000 and Section C: Km 330.000 to Km 357.979.000 and Km 291.000 to Km 292.000. Admittedly, there were certain delays in execution of the Project works and IJM sought Extension of Time for completion of the works on successive occasions, which were approved by NHAI.
6. IJM claimed that it had immediately commenced the works and duly mobilised its resources, however, the sites/stretches were not handed over properly and/or free of encumbrances and thus, there were delays and interruptions in execution of the works on the part of NHAI. NHAI had disputed the same and according to it, the delays were on the part of IJM. The date of completion for each section was extended up to 24.03.2006, 31.12.2005 and 24.03.2006 respectively.
7. Thereafter, on 28.08.2007, IJM submitted the `Statement at Completion', in accordance with Clause 60.10 of the Conditions of Particular Application (hereinafter `COPA') to the Acting Resident Engineer. The Acting Resident Engineer certified certain payments, however, excluded some claims submitted by IJM with the `Statement at Completion'.
8. Thereafter, on 21.10.2008, NHAI issued a Defect Liability Period Certificate (hereafter `DLC'). Pursuant to the issuance of the DLC, on 27.02.2009, IJM submitted a Draft Final Statement (hereafter `DFS'), in accordance with Clause 60.11 of the COPA and asserted the claims submitted by it along with the `Statement at Completion'. The DFS was divided into two parts: Appendix A, which contained the final value of work done in terms of Clause 60.11(a) of the COPA; and Appendix B, which contained such further sums that IJM considered to be due to it under the Agreement in terms of Clause 60.11(b) of the COPA.
9. Thereafter, by a communication dated 02.03.2009, the Engineer effected certain recoveries from the DFS submitted by IJM. By a communication dated 03.03.2009, IJM conveyed its disagreement in respect of the recoveries effected by the Engineer and r
The need for evidence to establish loss of profits and the court's discretion to modify the interest rate as agreed upon by the parties.
The main legal point established is that an arbitral award must be based on relevant material and evidence, and claims for loss of profit must be substantiated with evidence of missed opportunities.
An arbitrator's award can be set aside if it is based on a fundamental breach of contract that ignores material clauses of the agreement, leading to a finding that is perverse and constitutes a paten....
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
Clauses in contracts that prohibit claims for damages are against public policy and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they undermine the sanctity of contracts.
(1) Setting aside arbitral award – Claim for damages, whether general or special, cannot as a matter of course result in an award without proof of claimant having suffered injury.(2) Binding Preceden....
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.