J U D G M E N T

1. By way of these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner assails three arbitral awards dated 17.08.2023, which arise out of similar contracts between the parties. The contracts were for consultancy services to be provided by the petitioner, in connection with construction of various married accommodation projects of the respondent.

2. The nature of the contracts, and contentions of the parties, in all three cases, are on similar lines. The petitions have, therefore, been taken up for hearing together, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

A. FACTS

3. The respondent issued notices inviting bids on 12.02.2009 for selection of a “Detailed Engineering and Project Management Consultant” [“the Consultant”] for three married accommodation projects. The Consultant was required to provide services at the pre- construction stage, during construction, and post-construction. These included preparation of the tender for appointment of a contractor to carry out the construction, selection of the contractor and supervision of the contractor’s performance. The detailed scope of work was provided in the tender documents. Payment of consultancy charges was to be made in 5 stages. 30% of the consultancy payment was payable during the pre- construction phase (Stage 1 and Stage 2 payments), 55% during the construction phase (Stage 3 payment) and 15% in the post-construction phase (Stage 4 and Stage 5 payments).

4. The petitioner’s bids for the three consultancy contracts were the lowest, and Letters of Acceptance were issued in its favour on 22.05.2009. Parties also entered into three contracts, all dated 22.05.2009 [“Contract”].

5. The details of the contracts in each of the case are provided below:

6. Contractors were duly engaged for construction of the projects, but the projects took much longer to complete, compared to the originally contemplated periods. The petitioner contended that it was entitled to enhanced compensation as a result. The petitioner’s claims in the Vizag case were also based upon an enhancement in the project cost paid to the contractor. In the Pune and Ahmednagar cases, the contracts of the original contractors were terminated and “risk and cost contracts” were entered into with other contractors for completion of the projects. The petitioner sought enhanced compensation based upon the value of the risk and cost contracts in those two cases.

7. As the parties were not able to arrive at an agreement on these claims, the disputes were referred to arbitration under the three contracts. 8. The petitioner raised the following claims before the learned Arbitrator: