The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court upheld the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator to determine the delay in completion of work and the levy of liquidated damages.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeks to assail the arbitral award dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned Arbitrator. Under the impugned award, eight claims of the respondent/contractor have been allowed by the learned Arbitrator directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,90,05,308/- along with interest @11% per annum.

2. The brief facts as emerging from the record are that on the respondent submitting a bid on 08.11.2010, the petitioner/CPWD awarded in its favour a contract for construction of underground parking at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi on 07.02.2011. As per the contract entered into between the parties, the respondent was to commence work on 01.03.2011, with a stipulated date of completion of the work being 28.02.2012. The work was, however, completed belatedly on 30.04.2013 and the scope of the work as initially envisaged was substantially increased. Consequently, the cost of the work increased from Rs.13.50 Crores to over Rs.24 Crores, which amount included the cost of extra items, cost of deviation in quantities, escalation of minimum wages of the labour and market rate of the materials.

3. The respondent after accepting the payment towards the final bill under protest invoked arbitration on 07.05.2014 for adjudication of its eight claims and, consequently, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate these claims. These claims included a claim for the balance amount towards extra work done, which amount included the cost of extra items, substituted items and deviated items as also the amount towards escalation under Clause 10C and 10CA of the general conditions of the contract. It was the respondent's case that as the delay in completion of work was solely attributable to the petitioner, the respondent was also entitled to receive incentive bonus under Clause 2A of the agreement.

4. The respondent also claimed interest towards delayed payments and interest on the amount found due towards its various claims. Before the learned arbitrator, the petitioner also raised a counter claim of Rs.5,00,000/- by praying that the respondent ought to bear the entire cost of arbitration.

5. In support of their respective stands, both parties led evidence before the learned Arbitrator who, after considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties, passed the impugned award. The learned Arbitrator, while accepting the respondent's eight claims and rejecting the petitioner's sole counter-claim, awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,05,308/- to the respondent along with pendente lite interest @ 11% per annum. The learned Arbitrator further directed that in case the awarded amount was not paid within 90 days, future interest at the same rate of 11% would also be payable on the awarded amount.

6. For the sake of convenience, the claims raised by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator, as also the counter-claim raised by the petitioner may be noted hereinbelow in a tabular form.