The contractor bears the burden to substantiate claims for bonuses and reimbursement of costs, with courts limited to reviewing arbitral findings unless there is clear evidence of patent illegality.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner (hereinafter `SCCPL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the `A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award (hereinafter the `impugned award') dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Justice (Retired) Shiv Narayan Dhingra, a former Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an agreement dated 05.05.2014 (hereafter `the Agreement').

Factual Matrix

3. Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter `DDA') had issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for taking up the work of "Construction of peripheral SW drains and culverts in Section G-7 and G-B at Narela Sub City" (hereinafter the `Project'). SCCPL had participated in the bidding process pursuant to the aforesaid notice, and on 03.04.2014, DDA accepted SCCPL's bid for an amount of Rs.33,71,38,882/-. Thereafter, on 02.05.2014, DDA issued a Letter of Acceptance (hereinafter the `LOA'), in favour of SCCPL. The date of commencement of works was stipulated as the 15th day from the issuance of the LOA or from handing over of the site, whichever was earlier.

4. On 05.05.2014, the parties entered into the Agreement and the site was handed over to SCCPL. As per the said LOA, the date of completion of the work was twelve months, which was to commence from 16.05.2014 and the works were to be completed by 15.05.2015.

5. SCCPL claims that it had fully mobilised its resources in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and commenced the works relating to the Project, however, there was a delay in the execution of the works due to various reasons attributable to DDA and it was not possible for SCCPL to complete the work within the stipulated period, that is, on or before 15.05.2015.

6. By a communication dated 23.03.2015, SCCPL requested DDA to revise the milestones and the stipulated date for completion of the works. SCCPL also stated that it reserved its right to claim the required extension of time and compensation in terms of Clauses 10C and 10CA of the Agreement, as well as overhead expenses.

7. Thereafter, by a letter dated 12.06.2015, the Executive Engineer of DDA, after considering the aforementioned issues, recommended shifting of the milestones and the stipulated date of completion of the works to 08.12.2015 without prejudicing the right of DDA to recover compensation under Clause 2 and other clauses of the Agreement.

8. On 16.11.2015, SCCPL successfully completed the works. According to SCCPL, it had completed the works sixty-five days before the expiry of the contracted period. This was premised on the assertion that it was entitled to an extension of two-hundred and fifty days and thus, the work was to be completed by 20.01.2016.

9. Thereafter, DDA issued Performance Certificates dated 31.05.2016 and 15.06.2016 to SCCPL regarding completion of the works. The said certificates recorded that "The work has been executed satisfactorily. The overall performance of the work has been found as very good. The E.O.T. has been granted by competent authorities up to the actual date of completion without levy of compensation".

10. Thereafter, SCCPL, by various communications, requested DDA to compensate it on account of prolongation of the Project works and also, requested that various payments, which it claimed were due under the Agreement, be released to it. However, the same were not released by DDA. The last letter was dated 17.06.2017.

11. In June 2017, disputes arose between the parties, inter alia, regarding the compensation due to prolongation of the Project works and, SCCPL asked DDA to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement. However, DDA failed to do so.

12. Thereafter, in the month of November 2017, SCCPL approached this Court by way of a petition under Secti