ORDER :

1. The petitioners assail the arbitral award dated 12.12.2019 and the order dated 21.01.2020 (collectively the Award) insofar as the Award relates to the grant of disruption/idling and loss of profit claims, in part, and costs.

2. The petitioners awarded a contract to the respondent for earth work for forming a bank between kilometres 139-130, Reach IIIB, in relation to the gauge conversion of Mayiladuthurai-Karaikudi section. The contract also included the construction of a limited use subway (LUS). The estimated contract price was Rs. 22,14,12,498/-. Pursuant to the award of the contract to the respondent, a letter of acceptance was issued on 10.10.2013 and an agreement was executed on 07.04.2014. The said agreement specified that work had to be completed within a period of 15 months from the date of issuance of the letter of acceptance. On or about 17.04.2014, it appears that a decision was taken to eliminate the construction of the LUS from the scope of work. This was communicated to the respondent on or about 14.01.2015. Both prior and subsequent thereto, several extensions of time were granted and work was eventually completed on 30.09.2017.

3. After completion of the work, the respondent made several monetary claims. Since the said claims could not be resolved between the parties, the dispute was referred for arbitration. Before the arbitral tribunal, the respondent submitted a statement of claims and made about 8 claims. These claims pertained to: amounts due under the final bill; release and return of the bank guarantee; hire charges in respect of machinery; loss of profit for the un-executed value of work; damages towards head office overheads for the extended contract period; damages as interest at 12% p.a. from 01.10.2017; post award interest at 15% p.a. from the date of the Award; and costs of arbitration. The petitioners herein opposed these claims by filing a reply statement. In response to the said reply statement, a rejoinder statement was filed.

4. Upon considering the pleadings and submissions, the arbitral tribunal formulated the points for determination which are set out at paragraph 5 of the Award. Eventually, by the Award, the petitioners herein were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 27,84,807/- as regards claim No. 1 (Final Bill); a sum of Rs. 92,00,000/- towards release and return of bank guarantee (Claim No. 2); a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards loss of hire charges for machinery (Claim No. 3); a sum of Rs. 1,30,50,090/- towards loss of profit for unexecuted contract value (Claim No. 4) and a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as costs of the arbitration (Claim No. 8). Further interest on the amounts set out above at the rate of 15% per annum was awarded from the date of Award until realization. Claim Nos. 5 and 6 were rejected. The petitioners have challenged the Award only with regard to amounts awarded towards claim Nos. 3, 4 and 8. Amounts awarded in respect of Claims 1 and 2 were paid by the petitioners.

5. Oral submissions on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, learned standing counsel and on behalf of the respondent by Mrs. Aparna Devi, learned counsel.

6. Mr. P.T. Ram Kumar submitted that the respondent was informed about the reduction in scope of the contract by letter dated 14.01.2015. After being informed about the deletion of the LUS from the scope of work, he submitted that the applicant applied for and obtained several extensions of time. He first referred to the request for extension on 11.04.2014 and the grant of such extension up to 30.09.2015 on condition that no increase in rates would be granted on account of such extension. He also pointed out that the extension was granted under clause 17A (ii) of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). He referred thereafter to subsequent requests for and grant of extensions, up to the last extension on 11.10.2017 until 31.10.2017, and contended that each extension was subject to the condition that no increase in rates would be granted o