The non-breaching party is entitled to damages that place them in a position as if the contract had been performed, with the awarded loss of profits upheld based on reasonable calculations.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

The present set of petitions has been filed both by the claimant as well as the respondent against the award dated 19.12.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned award”). The claimant, AMPL Resources Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”) is the petitioner in OMP (COMM) 240/2025 and the respondent, NTPC Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”), is the petitioner in OMP (COMM) 186/2025. The petitioner had instituted arbitration proceedings against the respondent seeking recovery of money allegedly due under Contract dated 17.12.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Contract”). In the impugned award, the claim of the petitioner has been partly allowed and the petitioner seeks severance and setting aside of the part rejecting its claim and award of the full claim in its favour. The respondent seeks that the award be set aside in toto.

Facts

2. The petitioner was awarded the Contract for coal transportation from a designated mine to designated railway sidings for a period of one year with effect from 26.11.2019, which was extendable for a further period of six months. The terms of the Contract were contained in the General Conditions of Contract (hereinafter referred to as the “GCC”), Special Conditions of Contract (hereinafter referred to as the “SCC”), the Technical specifications and drawings, Schedule of Quantities, Contractor's Bid Proposal No. 50727, and the Purchase Order dated 18.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchase Order”), among other documents. Under the terms thereof, the respondent would provide monthly schedules to the petitioner, specifying the quantity of coal to be transported.

3. After commencement of the work at the scheduled time, the respondent, vide letter dated 13.04.2020, citing lower coal requirements, directed the petitioner to suspend transportation till further notice. The petitioner, thereafter, on various dates, claimed dues under various heads. The respondent, in its letter dated 04.12.2020, refuted the claims, stating that the Contract stipulated payment only according to the quantity of coal which is transported, and therefore, the petitioner's claim for the whole contract was not acceptable. Disputes persisted with regard to the petitioner's claims, leading to the institution of arbitral proceedings.

4. In the arbitral proceedings, the petitioner sought recovery of its purported dues (principal amount) as per the table extracted below:

5. The claims for loss of profit and retention money dues were allowed, and the claims for fixed office expenses and fixed costs were rejected.

Findings in the Impugned Award

6. The following points for determination were framed by the sole arbitrator:

1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the outstanding principal amount in the sum of Rs. 24,20,55,520.00?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to interest on the outstanding principal @12% per annum up to 31.03.2023 in the sum of Rs. 6,77,22,492.00?

3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a. on the allowed outstanding principal and interest amounts cumulatively?

4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the legal expenses as per actuals?

7. One of the questions framed by the sole-arbitrator for adjudicating the claim for the outstanding principal amount, which also has a bearing on the claim for interest on the principal amount, was whether the contract envisaged the transportation of a fixed quantity of coal.

8. The sole-arbitrator has examined the relevant clauses and recitals in the Contract, more particularly, the Bill of Quantity forming a part of the Letter of Intent, the Bill o