The Court upheld the AT's findings regarding the attribution of delay, enforcement of NOC, and the allowance of the claim for escalation cost without a specific clause in the Contract, based on the narrow scope of Section 34 of the A&C Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. The present petition under section 34 of the A&C Act [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] has been preferred by the petitioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, assailing the Arbitral Award dated 16.11.2022 rendered by the AT [Arbitral Tribunal] comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. The impugned Award was rendered in the context of disputes arising w.r.t. Agreement No. EE/CD-III/ACS/Agmnt/10/14-15 ("the Contract") dated 13.09.2014, executed in favour of the Respondent/Contractor [R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd.] for widening of bridge at RD-900m of Shahdara out fall drain near Kalindi Kunj, Noida ("the Project").

3. The stipulated dates for commencement and completion of the Project were 13.09.2014 and 12.03.2016 respectively. Indisputably, the Project could not be completed within the stipulated period, resulting in a request for extension of time by the Contractor. The extension was granted, and the Project was finally completed on 17.01.2019. Disputes having arisen w.r.t. payment of final bills and attributability of delays, arbitration was invoked. In its statement of claim, the Contractor raised claims for a total of Rs.5,44,24,036/-, inter alia, alleging that the delay in execution of work was attributable to the petitioner. A total of 8 claims were filed, pursuant to which the petitioner filed its statement of defence, but no counter claim.

4. The details of the claims raised are as follows:

i) Claim 1: Claim on account of work done not paid. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground that the cost of the initial test pile was not payable as per MORTH specification and that the pile was rejected as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, as the quantity of RMC poured in pile was less than the required quantity. Thus, nothing extra is payable

ii) Claim 2: Claim on account of less payment of substituted item. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground that the rate was derived on the basis of CPWD/DAR components and the same was approved on 15.10.2015, and not after completion of the work. Thus, nothing extra is payable

iii) Claim 3: Claim on account of less rate paid for extra item 4. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground that the rate paid by the department was accepted by the Contractor. Thus, nothing extra is payable

iv) Claim 4: Claim on account of increase in wages as per clause 10C. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground that the Contractor had already given an undertaking to not claim anything extra due to delay on the EOT proforma part 1. Thus, nothing extra is payable

v) Claim 5: Claim on account of prolongation of contract

Claim 5(a): Claim on account of increase in wages for labour on prevailing rates as per clause 10C as a compensation

Claim 5(b): Claim on account of increase in prices of material as damages in prolongation of contract

Claim 5(c): Compensation for losses on account of overstay at site in extended period for site establishment

Claim 5(d): Compensation for losses on account of overstay of machinery, tools and plant in extended period

Claim 5(e): Claim on account of head office expenses

Petitioner denied the claims on the ground that the Contractor had already given an undertaking to not claim anything extra due to delay on the EOT proforma part 1. Thus, nothing extra is payable

vi) Claim 6: Claim on account of interest @12%. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground of whatever was stated in the above-mentioned claims

vii) Claim 7: Due on account of GST on claim amount @ 12%. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground of whatever was stated in the above-mentioned claims

viii) Claim 8: Cost of arbitration. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground of the general submissions made

5. The summary of claim amounts, as claimed and as awarded by the AT, is set out below: