The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of contractual provisions in arbitration disputes.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has filed its written submission. The same are not on record, but the learned counsel has been heard on merit.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator to the limited extent that it rejects claim nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14 and 17 raised by the petitioner.

3. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, a few dates in relation to the Contract may be relevant to be noted:

(a) The petitioner was awarded the Contract for Package-III Electrical Services at AIIMS, Patna by the respondent on 29.08.2011;

(b) The work was to be completed within a period of 16 months commencing from 19.08.2011, therefore, the date of completion was 18.12.2012;

(c) The scope of work under the Contract comprised of Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning (in short, the 'SITC') of electrical equipments within a period of 16 months and, thereafter, comprehensive Operations and Maintenance (in short, 'O&M') thereof for a period of 5 years after expiry of 12 months' Defect Liability Period (in short, 'DLP') computed from the date of completion.

4. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner mobilized its men, material, and resources to execute and complete the work within the stipulated period of the Contract, however, there were delays on the part of the respondent at inception stages such as, delay in allocation of sites, the work fronts not being available even for the existing Sub-stations Buildings, the Sub-stations Buildings were unfinished and not completed/fitted with doors/ windows, exhaust fans and lighting etc., for which the electrical equipments could not be installed therein, and the building work at Substation nos.3, 4 and 4A were not completed. It was further the case of the petitioner that though, the respondent granted extension of time admitting that there was no default on the part of the petitioner in the delay caused, further claims of the petitioner with respect to the delay being attributable to the respondent were not granted.

5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement and raised as many as 17 claims before the learned Sole Arbitrator. Out of these claims, the learned Sole Arbitrator granted 9 claims, while rejecting the remaining 8 claims of the petitioner. The details of the claims that have been granted are as under:

6. The Claims which have been rejected by the learned Sole Arbitrator are as under: