* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24^th MARCH, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 341/2020 M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. P. Singh and Mr. Varnit Vashistha, Advocates versus M/S BEL-ACC(JV) .....Respondent Through: Dr. Swaroop George, Mr. Sunny Thomas, Mr. Abhinandan Jain, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Mr. Abhigyan Dwivedi, Mr. Kartikey, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

1. The present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the Petitioner herein against the Arbitral Award dated 27.05.2010 passed by a three-Member Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case as discernible from the material on record are stated as under:-

i. The Petitioner invited bids from pre-qualified contractors for the project of strengthening and four-laning of existing two lane sections between Km. 307.500-Km. 231.00 of Etawah Bypass on NH-2 in Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Project’).

ii. On the basis of the evaluation of the bids, the Respondent was awarded the contract dated 01.02.2001 bearing No. 11025/2/99/TECH/GM(WB)/ETAWAH (01.02.2001) for contract price of Rs.69,44,17,782/- (hereinafter referred to as the „Contract‟).

iii. The Contract was an item rate contract wherein the Respondent quoted its rates for various items of activities as per the details given in the bill of quantities conforming to the relevant technical specifications and other provisions of the contract.

iv. The Contract involved two separate phases. In Phase-I, the works to be undertaken by the Respondent was to provide two additional lanes by widening in the left hand side of the existing 7.3 Km. long two lanes, which was later changed to placing one lane on either side of the existing two lanes within the same land. The Phase-II involved entirely new construction of four lanes of 6.7 Km., scope of which remain unchanged. The percentage of the works involved in these two phases of the Project is stated to be in the proportion of 28% for Phase-I and 72% in Phase-II.

v. It is stated that the Respondent accepted the variation in Phase-I, thereby committing itself to execute the varied works within the provisions of the Contract without any reservations. However, the Respondent inter alia raised disputes with respect to the rates approved by the Petitioner for the varied items of work which were involved mainly in Phase-I of the Project.

vi. These disputes and differences between the parties were referred to the Engineer in the first instance as per Clause 67.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (hereinafter referred to as the „GCC‟).

vii. The Engineer rejected the claims of the Respondent and communicated his decision in writing to both the parties. Aggrieved by the decision of the Engineer, the Respondent gave notice to the Petitioner of its intention to commence arbitration for resolution of disputes by way of a letter dated 24.06.2004.

viii. A three-Member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and the Respondent came to file its Statement of Claim on 25.10.2004 raising the following Claims:-

“Claim No.1: Payment at revised rate for items of work under Clause 51 & 52 GCC in respect of the work executed upto

3.10.2003, the original date of completion -Rs. 1,63,85,553.60 Claim No.2: Compensation by way of revision of rate for the work executed during the extended period i.e. for the period between 3.10.2003 to 31.8.2004 with escalation-Rs. 2,85,68,783 Claim No.3:Extension of time sought upto 31.10.2006 for the alleged breach by the Employer.

Claim No.4: Compensation for loss of overheads profit and reduce productivity from the machinery and equipment deployed and loss of bonus upto 3.10.2003-Rs. 17,49,10,739.70 Claim No.5: Cost of deployment of additional resources for executing additional work from 1.1.2003 till date-Rs.

1,80,000,00 Claim No.6: Refund of royalty for ordinary earth deducted upto

31.8.2004-Rs. 25,62,622/-

Claim No.7: Interest: