Arbitral tribunals must not reject claims on non-arbitrability if disputes are sufficiently raised, and recovery rates must reflect reasonable estimates based on contractual terms and evidence.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner (hereafter `SIL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning an arbitral award dated 02.03.2014 (hereafter the `impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Justice (Retired) M.C. Agarwal as the Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').

2. SIL claims that it is a leading infrastructure company and has executed several projects. The respondent (hereafter `NTPC') is a Government of India enterprise and is, inter alia, engaged in the activity of generating electricity and managing the sale. NTPC had issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) on 02.05.2006 for inviting bids for the work of `Construction of the Main Plant Civil Works Package for Korba Super Thermal Power Project, Stage III (I x 500 MW)' (hereafter the `Project').

3. On 12.06.2006, SIL submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid NIT. The same was found to be the lowest and after negotiation, NTPC issued a Letter of Award (hereafter `LOA') dated 08.09.2006 whereby, the aforesaid contract was awarded to SIL. Thereafter, the parties entered into a contract bearing no. CS-2140-322-9-CS-COA-4740, in respect of the aforesaid Project on 28.02.2007 (hereafter `the Contract').

4. The works were to be completed within a period of thirty-seven months from the date of the LOA (that is, on or before 07.10.2009). The value of the Contract was agreed at Rs.67,59,66,972/-, which was amended to Rs.76,92,73,538.78/- (up to Amendment No.6). SIL claimed that it had mobilised its resources immediately after issuance of the LOA. However, it claims that execution of the works was delayed on account of several reasons (hindrances) attributable to NTPC. SIL claimed that it had incurred huge losses on account of failure on the part of NTPC to perform its obligations under the Contract. It claimed that some of the delays were also occasioned on account of repeated change in the methodology of execution of the works as demanded by NTPC. SIL claimed that NTPC had issued the NIT, without the necessary ground work and without being fully ready for the execution of a contract of such nature.

5. In view of the above, SIL raised certain claims, which were denied by NTPC.

6. The LOA was amended on several occasions. The last amendment, prior to reference, being the sixth amendment was made on 01.09.2010.

7. In terms of Clause 10 of the Contract, it was open for the parties to seek recourse to arbitration in terms of Clause 56 and 57 of the General Conditions of Contract (hereafter `GCC'), as applicable to the Contract. In view of the disputes between the parties, SIL invoked the Arbitration Clause (Clause 56 of the GCC) by a notice dated 11.06.2010. Pursuant to the said request, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and the Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

8. On 10.11.2010, SIL filed its Statement of Claims before the Arbitral Tribunal claiming an aggregate amount of Rs.44,52,90,985/-, in addition to interest and costs. The summary of SIL's claims is set out below:

Claim No.1. Claim on account of extra works executed at the site amounting to Rs.5,56,78,755/-.

A) Additional expenses incurred for carrying continuous dewatering with specialized techniques - Rs. 2,49,82,825.00

B) Additi