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

2023 Supreme(Del) 3304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Thdc India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s PCL-intertech Lenhydro Consortium Jv – Respondent
O.M.P. COMM) 303 of 2020
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Puneet Taneja, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Mr. Srinivasan Ramaswamy, Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula and Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate and Ms. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Purvesh Buttan, Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Mr. Prateek Narwar, Ms. Vidhushi Garg, Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Jatin Mongia, Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo, Ms. Palak Sharma, Mr. Tarun Mehta, Mr. Deepak Joshi and Mr. Raghav Agarwal, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to an arbitral award dated 17.12.2010 for construction of a hydroelectric project - Issues included delays caused by non-handing over of land and multiple requests for time extensions. The arbitral tribunal found 63 months of delay not attributable to claimant - Findings substantiate that no claim certificate issued under compulsion does not bar claims - Compensation awarded for construction delays and escalated costs. (Paras 9, 65, 120)

(B) Contractual obligations - Subcontracting and its implications on the contractor's responsibilities. The tribunal found that sub-contracting was regularized and did not absolve original responsibilities. (Paras 73, 99)

(C) No Claim Certificate - Tribunal determined the certificate was obtained under duress and did not bar claims for compensation - The lack of specific language in the contract prohibited the tribunal from awarding interest contrary to the contractual terms. (Paras 96, 120)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an arbitral award regarding delays and claims against a contract for a hydroelectric project, alleging that many delays were the respondent's fault. The tribunal found substantial delays were on the part of the petitioner, while claims for costs arose from those delays. (Paras 2-10, 12-16)

Findings of Court:
The tribunal ordered compensation and recognized that delays due to the respondent's actions warranted additional costs, including the interest on losses incurred by delays beyond the contract period due to non-fulfilling behaviors of the petitioner. The tribunal explicitly dismissed claims for prejudice based on no claim certificates issued under duress. (Paras 61-65, 120-130)

Issues: Whether the award is liable to set aside for granting compensation being in violation of the contractual provisions and whether the no claim certificates bar further claims. (Paras 34-38, 82-84)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that a no claim certificate obtained under compulsion does not extinguish a party's rights; contract provisions on interest do not preclude claims unless explicitly stated. The tribunal’s findings were based on evidence of the ongoing contractual obligations held by both parties. (Paras 34-38, 120-130)

Result: The petition to set aside the arbitral award was partly allowed, affirming monetary awards but vacating pre-award interest. (Paras 132)

Table of Content
1. overview of arbitration framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of contract scope and obligations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. listing causes for project delays. (Para 7)
4. preliminary objections pertaining to claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. findings and analysis of arbitrator on claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. petitioner’s challenge against award reasoning. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
7. interest on claims and implications. (Para 120 , 123 , 124)
8. final determination and order of the court. (Para 131 , 132)

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 assails an award dated 17.12.2010 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal, pursuant to an arbitration agreement incorporated in the Contract Agreement dated 14.11.2002 entered into between the parties.

The background facts:

2. The contract between the parties is a construction contract, involving construction of "Civil Works of Dam, Spillway and Power House of 400 MW Koteshwar Hydro Electric Project at Koteshwar, Uttarakhand". A letter of award (hereinafter referred to as "LoA") was issued in favour of the Respondent on 31.8.2002, followed by contract agreement dated 14.11.2002; the contract period was 45 months from the date of LoA. The contract sum was Rs.334,51,66,092/- [Rupees Three Hundred Thirty Four Crores Fifty One Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand and Ninety Two Only].

3. The contract contains an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes through arbitration by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three arbitrators, each party appointing one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appointing the presiding arbitrator.

4. A total of 14 claims were raised by the respondent; 6 counter claims were raised by the petitioner, which have been adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal vide the impugned award.

5. The scope of work as elaborated in the "special conditions of contract" is as under:

    "i. Construction of river diversion works, i.e., lining of diversion tunnel along with intake structure and outlet works, upstream and downstream cofferdams. Sain Nala Cofferdam and its diversion, and concrete plug in diversion tunnel.

    ii. Construction of concrete gravity dam comprising non-overflow blocks, spillway and stilling basin with training walls etc., under-sluices, bridge on the spillway, including foundation and abutment treatment and underground grouting works.

    iii. Construction of power house complex, comprising power intakes, 4 Nos. shafts and penstocks, power house (4 x 100 MW), access tunnel, tail race channel, transformer platform over control rooms, switch yard platform, cable trench/gallery and permanent service road from dam crest to left abutment, power house and switch yard. The nature of work includes dewatering and pumping, excavation and disposal, underground excavation of embankment, concreting, drilling and grouting, reinforcements etc., as set out in pages 336 & 337 of Volume-1 of the contract.

    The exclusions from the contract are also agreed as specified at page-337 and these exclusions are: supply and installation of gates, guides; hoisting system for spillway intake structure, draft tubes; turbines, governors, generators, various electrical & mechanical systems; transformers, switch yard structures, internal and external electrification in dams, etc., as detailed in page-337 of Volume-1 of the contract.

    The Major components under the scope of work are; Completion of the balance works of river diversion tunnel, construction of a concrete dam of 97.5 mtrs height and 253 mtr long, along with power intakes and spillway, sluice blocks, stilling basin for energy dissipation down stream of spillway; four numbers of pen stocks, pressure shafts and steel lined pressure tunnels; a surface power house complex to house, the turbines, governors, generators, electrical equipment etc., to accommodate 4 units of 100 MW each capacity as detailed in Sec. A.2 Page-T7 of Volume-2 of the contract."

6. The work envisaged under the c

  • 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