The court upheld the arbitral award, confirming limitations and contractual adherence dictated the validity of claims and findings concerning 'accord and satisfaction' precluded further disputes.

ORDER :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the Act), challenging the award dated 01.7.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator.

2. In O.P.No.810 of 2019, M/s.NRP Projects Private Limited - the claimant before the Arbitral proceedings is the petitioner whereas in O.P.No.110 of 2021, M/s.Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL) - the respondent before the arbitral proceedings is the petitioner. Both petitions have been filed by the claimant as well as the CPCL partly challenging the very same arbitral award.

3. Heard both.

4. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions are as follows: (1) The CPCL, through its Consultant - one M/s.Tata Consulting Engineers Limited, invited bids for the design, procurement and erection of tankages for its Euro IV Project at Manali, Chennai, in which, the claimant was the successful bidder.

(2) The CPCL awarded the work vide Fax of Acceptance (FoA) dated 21.4.2009 and a subsequent Letter of Acceptance (LoA) of W.O.No.1035/W/051 dated 12.5.2009 was issued to the claimant, on a lump sum contract value of Rs.38,95,01,400/- excluding Service Tax. The stipulated period for completion of work was 15 months commencing from 21.4.2009 and the work was required to be completed on or before 20.7.2010.

(3) On the other hand, the work was completed only on 23.9.2011 and the final completion certificate was issued by the CPCL on 06.11.2013. Notwithstanding the same, the CPCL recovered liquidated damages (LDs) amounting to Rs.3,10,57,883/- from the claimant. In the course of execution of the contract, the claimant was required to carry out certain additional/extra works. In the meantime after prolonged exchange of correspondences, the CPCL issued change order No.1 on 31.10.2013 for a reduced sum of Rs.56,37,067/-. As a consequence, disputes arose between the parties with respect to various payments and recoveries effected by the CPCL.

(4) The claimant issued a notice dated 30.5.2016 to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause under Clause 58 of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC). A sole Arbitrator was appointed and the arbitration proceedings were conducted under the Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Forum of Conciliation and Arbitration Rules.

(5) Pursuant thereto, the claimant filed its statement of claim by making the following claims:

(A) Reimbursement of TDS amounting to Rs.3,51,945/- deducted on interest recovered towards Mobilization Advance;

(B) Refund of a sum of Rs.35,90,147/- withheld towards ESI/PF dues;

(C) Payment of Rs.2,21,30,105/- being the balance amount for extra/additional works executed;

(D) Reimbursement of Rs.9,93,061/- incurred towards additional bank guarantee extension charges;

(E) Refund of Rs.3,10,57,883/- recovered towards the LDs;

(F) Payment of Rs.5,45,30,196/- towards prolongation costs/ overheads for the extended contract period;

(G) Payment of Rs.50,80,073/- towards interest on delayed payments of various bills;

(H) Interest on the aggregate claims from the date of cause of action till realization; and

(I) Costs of arbitration.

(6) The CPCL filed its statement of defence and took a stand that the claims were not arbitrable due to the final determination of bills by the Engineer-In-Charge/Consultant and that the claims were barred by limitation, as they were raised for the first time in 2016. The CPCL further contended that there was a f