ORDER

This revision petition under section 19 of the Madhya

Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') is directed against the Award dated 26/07/2014 passed in Reference Case No.1/2009

passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal.

2. reiterate relevant facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition :-

(i) The respondent/propriety firm was awarded contract for construction of 38.72 kms. of road {(i) Nayagaon-Chinnor-Dabra 26.65 kms. (ii) Chinore-Doni 4.49 km (iii) Chinore-Sirsa 4.09 kms and (iv) Pichore-Indargarh-Kaithore 3.4 kms}. The amount of contract was Rs.763.08 lacs. Stipulated period of contract was

(3)

9 months e/x-rainy season. Stipulated date of completion was 20/10/2006 (15 days for mobilization). Agreement was executed vide agreement No.42/2005-2006 on 16.09.2005 and work order was issued on 6/10/2005. Amount of work done is to the tune of Rs.6,13,19,564/-. However, from the final bill of amount of Rs.44,23,298/-, net amount paid was Rs.22,55,912/- after deduction of liquidated damages. Hence, the total payment received is Rs.6,13,19,564 – 22,00,000 (approx). As the contract was not completed within the stipulated period, four extensions were afforded under clause 27 of agreement, first up to 30/4/2007, second up to 30/6/2007, third up to 30/11/2007 and fourth up to

31/3/2008. The actual date of completion is 31/3/2008.

(ii) Clause 44 of the agreement provided for liquidated damages and clause 24 provided for dispute redressal system.

(iii) It appears that respondent raised a dispute (Ex.P/14) related to extension of time for the delay and imposition of liquidated damages and recovery of consultant's supervision charges under Clause 24 of the General Conditions of Contract before the competent Authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Madhya Pradesh, Rural Road Development Authority, Paryavas Bhavan Bhopal vide its petition (Ex.P/14) dated 03/08/2008. The competent Authority rejected the claim vide communication dated 18/12/2008 (Ex.P/15). Consequent thereupon, the respondent vide communication dated 20/10/2008 (Ex.P/16) was called upon to deposit the following amount :-

(i) 5% of amount of contract of Rs.7.63 Rs.38,15,422/- (ii) Consultancy Charges Rs.24,55,433/-

(4)

Rs.62,70,855/- minus

(i) Amount deposited under different heads Rs.37,33,559/- (ii) Withheld amount Rs. 8,66,188/-

Rs.47,99,747/-

Total amount to be deposited Rs.16,71,108

(iv) The respondent in the aforesaid backdrop of factual matrix, approached the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran,

Bhopal by way of a dispute under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam.

(v) The respondent had made following claims :-

(vi) Claims No.2 and 3 have been rejected. The subject matter of the arbitration revolves around three claims namely :-

(i) Liquidated damages alongwith consultancy charges,

(ii) Loss of overheads and loss of profits, and

(iii) Claim for interest.

3. is before this Court taking exception to the impugned award with following submissions :-

(5)

(a) By-parte agreement dated 16.09.2005 inter alia under Clause 44 provides for liquidated damages leviable on the contractor for the period between actual date of completion of the contact and intended date of completion of contract. As such, the liability of payment of liquidated damages neither can be disputed nor can be quantified. Therefore, the claim against liquidated damages adjusted from the final bill was not in the domain of arbitral dispute. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment Mitra Guha Builders (India) Company Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (2020) 3 SCC 222 (para 17 to 26) the impugned award suffers from patent illegality having setting aside the liquidated damages.

(b) Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise the Tribunal altogether ignored documents filed and relied upon to rebut the contentions of the contractor that the delay caused in completion of the contract was attributable to the petitioner – MPRRDA. Hence, the impugned award suffers f