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
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
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 interfer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the principles of public policy and fundamental In....
The Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The entitlement to compensation for overheads incurred during the extended period of the agreement and the calculation of rates for extra items were central legal points established in the judgment.
Statutory limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is strict and cannot be relaxed without sufficient justification; defective petitions lead to being treated as non-est.
The Arbitral Tribunal has considerable discretion in evaluating evidence and interpreting contract clauses, and its decision cannot be interfered with unless found to be patently illegal or in confli....
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.