A court's revisional jurisdiction over arbitral awards is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent illegality; the burden remains on the claimant to prove allegations of loss through cogent evidence, and a voluntary request for contract foreclosure precludes subsequent claims for damages.

ORDER

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

1. This Civil Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against the award dated 15.01.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 21/1998, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The facts of the present case pertain to a construction contract for the balance work of the main earthen dam of the Man Project, which included the portion from RD 154 M to RD 487 M, covering trench cutting, excavation, earth filling, dam work, and laying of filter blankets and chimney filters, excluding watering and compaction works. The contract was awarded to the petitioner after receipt of the tender dated 21/9/1990, followed by issuance of the work order on 11/7/1991, with a stipulated completion period of 18 months, revised extensions subsequently granted up to 31/3/1994 and then 30/6/1995, and on the further application for extension, till 29/2/1996. Eventually, the contract was terminated by the petitioner on 26/2/1996, with the total cost of work executed amounting to Rs. 1,23,23,244/- as against the contract value of Rs. 1,51,51,342/-. It is further noted that the execution of certain adjacent works, specifically concrete/masonry blocks and downstream training wall, depended on another contractor, whose failure to complete the assigned items rendered it impossible for the petitioner to finish the earthwork in the wrap round portion and behind the training wall, consequently, earthwork connecting these components also remained incomplete, yet 95% of the stipulated contract work was duly executed by the petitioner, with only the portions linked to the unexecuted responsibilities of other contractors left unfinished. Claim for advances and interest thereon at the tune Rs. 5,01,626/- and interest on delay payment tune of Rs.4,96,674/- and loss of infructuous overhead and loss of profit at the tune Rs.6,31,300/- and earth work at chimney area to the tune Rs.20,639/- and different payment for extra work to the tune Rs.4,58,314/-, total amount Rs.21,08,553/- was wrongly rejected and claim for Rs.2,27,054/- has been wrongly adjusted against the price acceleration amount Rs.3,41,739/- which was awarded to the petitioner .

3. Respondents have stated that the petitioner was given sufficient extensions under Clauses 4.3.5.1 and 4.3.5.2 of the agreement but the progress of the work was slow and held up due to shifting of the machines to other projects viz. Rampur Khurd Project in Sehore District The petitioner had failed to complete the work within the stipulated period of completion and even in extended period due to non-deployment of adequate labour, lack of planning and management, shifting of machineries to the other project site and inadequate machineries. It is further stated that at the instance of petitioner vide Ex.D-3 their letter No. 298/AMSK/96-97 dt. 1.7.1996 the foreclosure of work was considered by the Member, M.V.D.A., Bhopal and decision was communicated vide letter No. 479/7/M.V.D.A./Engg./6/95 dt. 29.7.97, in pursuance of which the final measurements of work was taken on 22.10.1997 and after due scrutiny the payment of final bill was made by the respondents’ E.E. on 2