JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter, the „A&C Act‟) seeking setting aside of impugned award dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators (hereafter, „AT‟) with respect to rejection of Claim No.1 for idling of men, machinery and resources.

2. The impugned award came to be delivered in the context of contract dated 15.12.2011 which came to be executed for the work of “Construction of viaduct including related works for 5.400 km length excluding station areas from Ch. 20006.60 to Ch. 26394.60 between CBD -1 to Rabindra

Tirtha in New Garia Airport corridor of Kolkata Metro Railway Line Package- ANV-4” for Rs.199,10,44,060/-. The letter of acceptance was issued to the Petitioner on 21.10.2011. As per the terms of contract, the completion period for work was 30 months from the date of letter of acceptance. The stipulated date for start of work was 21.10.2011 and stipulated date of completion was 20.04.2014. The actual date of completion of work was 30.06.2018.

DISPUTES BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

3. The Petitioner approached AT and filed six claims. The AT after taking into consideration the submissions of both the parties, out of 6 claims preferred by the Petitioner, the AT has allowed Claim No. 2, 4 and 5 while rejecting Claim No. l, 3 and 6. The Petitioner filed Claim No.1 for idling of resources and claimed the amount of Rs. 6,52,70,847/-, which was rejected by the AT. In Claim No.2, an amount of Rs. 50,62,312/- was claimed by the Petitioner for pond filing which was partially allowed and the AT awarded an amount of Rs.11,53,756/-. Claim No.3, was seeking an amount of Rs.2,26,40,970/- for the cost incurred due to digging deeper piles which was rejected by the AT. The Petitioner filed Claim No.4, for additional engineering and claimed the amount of Rs. 50,04,723/- which was partly allowed and an amount of Rs. 3,99,507/- was awarded by the AT. In Claim No.5, an amount of Rs. 6,65,600/- was claimed by the Petitioner for use of steel procured from primary producer in enabling steel which was allowed. Claim No.6, pertaining to the interest pendent lite and interest on the award was rejected by the AT.

4. By way of Claim No.1, the Petitioner had contended that on account of delay on the part of Respondent in providing drawings & permissions, change of alignment, arranging GTS mark and providing the requisite land in the time specified, the Petitioner was entitled to the compensation as the delay led to idling of its resources.

5. The Respondent had resisted the claim by relying on clause 2.2 and 8.3 of GCC. It had also contended that the progress achieved by the Petitioner in areas available to them was slow and not up to the mark. The Petitioner was also accused of poor co-ordination with different authorities, leading to delay.

IMPUGNED AWARD

6. The challenge in the present petition is restricted to rejection of the Claim No.1 pertaining to idling of men, machinery and resources. With respect to the amount claimed for idling of resources, AT was of the view that the adjudication of claims could only be done within the framework of subject contract agreement.

7. Clause 2.2 was cited, which states that “… For any such delay in handling over of site, Contractors will be entitled to only reasonable extension of time and no monetary claims whatsoever shall be paid or entertained on this account.” Clause 8.3 was also relied upon which states that delay by the employer or engineer in handing over the site, necessary notice, drawings, instructions, clarifications, supply of materials, plant and machinery would not entitle the contractor to damages or compensation thereof and the engineer shall extend the time period for completion of contract.

8. The AT while rejecting the said claim observed that the Respondent has provided extension of completion period while taking into account the delay which was not attributable to the Petition