Arbitral awards are upheld where the claims are barred by pre-existing certificates and where the burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate additional work claims.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal, preferred by the Appellant, assails the correctness of judgment and order dated 05.08.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P.(COMM) 440/2024, whereby the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘1996 Act’] challenging the arbitral award dated 04.07.2024, passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, came to be dismissed.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court ought to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant’s petition under Section 34 , particularly when the arbitral award rests on a finding that the Appellant is barred from raising any claim on account of the No Claim Certificate and allied declarations executed by it.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the material facts giving rise thereto.

4. The Respondent awarded a works contract to the Appellant pursuant to a tender issued during the year 2013 for execution of earthwork and allied civil works relating to development of land at a Container Freight Station at Vallarpadam, Cochin, Kerala. The contract was an item-rate contract governed by the General Conditions of Contract and the Special Conditions of Contract, and the scope of work was defined by the Bill of Quantities [hereinafter referred to as ‘BOQ’] forming part of the tender documents. Under the contractual arrangement, the BOQ specifying items of work and approximate quantities was prepared by the Respondent, and the Appellant was required to execute the works in accordance therewith, under the supervision of the Respondent.

5. The scheduled date of commencement of work was 02.03.2014 and the stipulated date of completion was 01.01.2015. The work, however, came to be completed on 26.06.2017, whereafter completion was certified and the works were put to use by the Respondent. During the course of execution of the contract, disputes arose between the parties in relation to the execution of the works, payments made therefor, and responsibility for alleged defects and rectification.

6. The Appellant asserted that, during execution, it was required to carry out certain additional and rectification works beyond the original scope of the BOQ, allegedly on account of site conditions and directions issued by the Respondent. It was also alleged that payments of running account bills were delayed, that certain deductions were wrongfully made, and that amounts towards earnest money deposit were liable to be refunded. According to the Appellant, the additional works were executed under compulsion and without commensurate payment.

7. The Respondent, on the other hand, disputed the aforesaid assertions and contended that the works executed by the Appellant were governed by the contractual terms, that no extra or variation works were duly established in accordance with the contract, and that any rectification carried out was within the Appellant’s contractual obligations. The Respondent further denied liability towards additional payments and interest.

8. In view of the disputes, the Appellant invoked the arbitration clause contained in the contract and referred the disputes to arbitration. Before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the Appellant