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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Siddharth Constructions Co. - Appellant
Versus
India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM.) 184 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2021




The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Petition against arbitral award - The tribunal partially denied claims for damages on account of delays, attributing partial liability to both parties. The petition challenged the tribunal's findings as inconsistent. Court affirmed the tribunal's decisions citing no evidence of loss from delays. (Paras 19, 22, 25, 34)

(B) Standards of Review - Courts should show restraint in scrutinizing arbitral awards under Section 34 and should not re-appreciate evidence presented during arbitration. Errors of law must satisfy the threshold of 'patent illegality' to warrant annulment. (Paras 24, 26)

(C) Grounds for Arbitration Claims - Claims for overheads and losses of profit need substantive proof of actual losses, not merely normative calculations. The tribunal’s rejection on such grounds was deemed acceptable within its discretion. (Paras 30, 32)

(D) Finality of Tribunal Decisions - Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitrator's decisions if based on evidence. Misinterpretation of contract clauses or manifest injustices are grounds for annulment, but were not found in this instance. (Paras 23, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner engaged in construction under a contract with the respondent, which faced delays. Claims for damages stemming from these delays were presented but were found inconsistent by the tribunal, which issued an interim award and finalized the terms.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the tribunal's findings as based on sufficient evidence while clarifying the degree of responsibility for project delays.

Issues: Whether the tribunal's findings on delay and damages were justified and consistent; whether the petitioner provided adequate evidence for claims rejected by the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that absence of evidence to support claims justifies the tribunal’s denial of damages; insisted on jurisdictions under which awards can be challenged.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the `A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 09.05.2020 (hereinafter the `impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a former judge of this Court as the Sole Arbitrator.

2. The impugned award has been rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an agreement dated 02.07.2012 (hereafter `the Agreement').

3. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has partly denied the claims preferred by the petitioner. The Arbitral Tribunal has denied that petitioner's claim for damages and loss of profit on account of delay in completion of works.

Factual Context

4. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ITDC") invited tenders on 09.02.2011 for "Construction of Memorial of Smt. Vidyavati Ji Mother of Great Martyr Shaheed Bhagat Singh Ji" at Village Moranwali, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the "Memorial").

5. The petitioner tendered its bid to execute the works on 11.04.2011, pursuant to the aforementioned notice inviting tenders. By a letter dated 23.11.2011, ITDC accepted the petitioner's bid to execute the works at a price of Rs.3,67,73,933.74/-.

6. Thereafter, ITDC issued a detailed Work Order - Work Order no. ITDC Engg/DGM/Moranvali/2012 dated 20.12.2011 - in favour of the petitioner. On 02.07.2012, the parties entered into the Agreement. In terms of the Agreement, the petitioner was obliged to complete the works within a prescribed period of 12 (twelve) months to be reckoned from the seventh day of issue of the Letter of Intent or, the date of actual handing over the site, whichever was later. Therefore, the work was to be completed by 19.12.2012.

7. However, the works could not be completed within the stipulated time. The same were completed on 30.01.2018; that is, after a delay of five years, one month and eleven days. The petitioner claims that the delay in completion of works is for reasons attributable to ITDC.

8. Whilst the petitioner claimed that the delays were justified, ITDC asserted that the petitioner was liable for a delay of thirty-nine days.

9. The RA Bills (Running Account Bills) were cleared by ITDC. However, there was a considerable delay in clearance of the Final Bill. The same was cleared in two tranches. The first tranche of Rs.28 Lacs was paid on 20.11.2018, that is, after a delay of ten months. The second tranche of Rs.10,82,249/- was paid on 02.02.2019, that is, more than one year after completion of the work. In addition to this, ITDC had also deducted certain amounts from the payments due to the petitioner including compensation of Rs.4 lacs on account of delay of thirty-nine days in completion of the works.

10. On 14.03.2019, the petitioner sent a notice and requested for appointment of an arbitrator with mutual consent. It asserted that the appointment procedure mentioned in Clause no. 48 of the Agreement was contrary to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act and, proposed the name of Sh. Amarjit Singh, (Retd.) Chief Engineer, Mohali for being appointed as the Arbitrator with mutual consent.

11. However, ITDC unilaterally appointed Justice (Retired) S.P. Garg, a former judge of this Court as the Sole Arbitrator.

12. The petitioner filed its Statement of Claims raising several claims. A tabular statement summarizing the claims made, is set out below:-

Claim No. 1(a)Compensation for delay which was deducted by ITDC-Rs.4,00,000/-
Claim No. 1(b)Refund of security deposit-Rs. 5,00,000/-
Claim No. 1(c)Compensation for the deduction towards water and electricity charges-Rs.1,48,957/-
Claim No. 1(d)Compensation for the deduction from the final bill on account of M/S Aditya Associates-Rs.1,05,891/-
Claim No. 1(e)Compensation for the deduction on account of Goods and Service Tax (GST)-Rs.3,74,448/-
Claim No. 1(f)On account of granite

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