The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement while emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for quantifying damages, ruling that claims for compound interest were not accounted for in the original request.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner (hereafter `ACIL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 30.05.2019 (hereafter `the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter `the Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with the Work Order dated 07.03.2013 bearing reference number ACIL/Grim-Tech/1060313/2013 (hereafter the `Principal Work Order') for carrying out pile foundation work for CHP at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Plant of Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Limited, valued at Rs.10,73,94,000/-. The aforesaid Principal Work Order was subsequently amended on 24.07.2013 by a Work Order bearing reference number ACIL/Grim-Tech/1060313/2013/Amend-1 (hereafter the `Amended Work Order').

3. The respondent (hereafter `GTPL') claimed that under the Amended Work Order, ACIL had failed to pay the outstanding dues and compensation for extended deployment of assets including interest thereon.

4. GTPL submitted that twelve Running Account Bills were issued to ACIL for a total amount of Rs.2,94,55,392/-. GTPL claimed that an amount of Rs.1,00,07,985/- was due and payable by ACIL under the Amended Work Order after all statutory deductions. On 21.07.2016, GTPL sent an email to ACIL and sought confirmation on the outstanding dues. ACIL reverted on the same date confirming that an amount of Rs.1,00,07,985/- was payable to GTPL.

5. In terms of Clause 18 of the Amended Work Order, the works were to be completed within four months from the date of execution that is, by 24.11.2013. GTPL claimed that there was a delay in execution of the works for reasons attributable to ACIL. On 12.11.2014, GTPL informed ACIL that the piling work was at a standstill as it had not provided the requisite steel and cement.

6. GTPL claimed that assets being two Piling Rigs, two Cranes, one Hydra and one JCB deployed at the work site from December 2013 till March 2015 remained idle. On 03.03.2015, ACIL issued an outward gate pass for the aforesaid equipment. GTPL contended that the equipment could have been deployed at other sites or let out on hire. It accordingly sought compensation for extended deployment of assets at the site of ACIL. GTPL further sought reimbursement for providing support staff including for expenses for their food and lodging during the period from December 2013 till March 2015.

7. In view of the above disputes, GTPL issued a legal notice dated 07.09.2016 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and for reference of disputes to arbitration in terms of Clause 27 of the Terms and Conditions appended to the Principal Work Order as applicable to the Amended Work Order.

8. ACIL denied the claims raised by GTPL and did not take any steps for the appointment of an arbitrator. Consequently, GTPL filed a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act (being ARB P. 98/2017) before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.04.2017 and this Court directed that an arbitrator be appointed under the rules of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

9. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, GTPL raised the following claims: