* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 246/2016 INDIAN OIL CARPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. V. N. Koura, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Shaurya Dahiya, Advocates versus M/SMETRO BUILDERS(ORISSA)PVT. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Ms. Shweta Pattanaik, Ms. Babita Rawat, Ms. Kashish Maheshwari and Ms. Gulnar Arora, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, filed under Section 34 read with Sections 28 and 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~16, assails the Arbitral Award dated 20.11.2014, Impugned Award, in respect of Claim No. 2, rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings titled “Metro Builders (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited.”

2. By the Impugned award, the learned Arbitrator has allowed the claims preferred by the Respondent in respect of Claim No. 2, along

1 Act

with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, payable after the expiry of two months from the date of the award until the date of payment.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, confines the challenge to a singular, yet foundational ground that the Impugned Award is ex facie contrary to the express terms of the Contract. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon Clauses 4.3.5.0, 4.3.5.1, 4.3.5.2 and 4.3.6.0 of the General Clauses of the Contract, GCC, forming part of the Agreement dated 26.07.2006, Agreement, which are reproduced herein below:

“4.3.5.0 Within 7 (seven) days of the occurrence of any act, event or omission which, in the opinion of the Contractor, is likely to lead to delay in the commencement or completion of any particular work(s) or operation(s) or the entire work at any job site(s), and as such would entitle the Contractor to an extension of time specified in this behalf in the Progress Schedule(s), the Contractor shall inform the Site Engineer and the Engineer-in- Charge in writing of the occurrence of such act, event or omission and the date of commencement of such occurrence. Thereafter, if even upon the cessation of such act or event or the fulfillment of the omission, the Contractor is of the opinion that an extension of time specified in the Progress Schedule relative to any particular operation(s) or item(s) of work or the entire work at any job site is necessary, the Contractor shall, within 7 (seven) days after such cessation or fulfillment, make a written request to the Engineer-in- Charge for extension of the relative time specified in the Progress Schedule. The Engineer-in-Charge may, at any time prior to completion of the work, extend the relative time of completion in the Progress Schedule for such period(s) as he considers necessary, if he is of the opinion that such act/event/omission constitutes a ground for extension of time in terms of the Contract and that such act/event/omission has, in fact, resulted in insurmountable delay to the Contractor.

4.3.5.1 The application for extension of time made by the Contractor to the Engineer-in-Charge shall contain full details of:

(a) the notice under Clause 4.3.5.0, along with copies of the notices sent to the Engineer-in-Charge and the Site Engineer;

(b) the activity in the Progress Schedule affected;

(c) the bottlenecks or obstructions perceived/experienced, and the reasons therefor;

(d) the extension required on account of (c) above;

(e) the extension required on account of reasons attributable to the Owner;

(f) the extension required on account of force majeure; and (g) the total extension of time required for completion, taking the above into account and after eliminating all overlaps.

4.3.5.2 The opinion/decision of the Engineer-in-Charge in this behalf and as to the extension of time necessary shall, subject to the provisions of Clause 4.3.6.0 hereof, be final and binding upon the Contractor.

4.3.6.0 Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 4.3.