The enforceability of limitation clauses in contracts is valid, and parties are bound by prior agreements regarding damage claims, reinforcing their contractual obligations.

1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1st March, 2021, which is passed in an appeal under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act').

2. We refer to a few factual aspects of the case. An agreement dated 28th June, 2012 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for constructing five Road Over Bridges (for short, 'ROBs') and their approaches at different locations in the State of Rajasthan. The schedule of completion in respect of each ROB was different. The locations where ROBs were to be constructed have been described as LC - 200, LC - 89, LC - 228, LC - 233 and LC - 108. According to the appellant's case, the work at the sites was delayed for the reasons attributable to the respondent. According to the appellant's case, the respondent withdrew the work relating to the construction of two ROBs (LC - 200 and LC - 233) from the scope of work and certified the completion of the remaining work. There is no dispute that we are not concerned with LC - 200 and LC - 233 in this appeal. In the case of LC - 89 and LC - 228, the scheduled completion date was 15th September, 2013. For LC - 108, it was 16th July, 2013. As per the completion certificate dated 22nd March 2016, the work of LC - 89 was completed on 8th October 2014, and the work of LC - 228 was completed on 21st March 2015. According to the appellant's case, work at LC - 108 was completed on 31st March 2017.

3. On 19th June 2013, the appellant addressed a letter to the respondent's General Manager stating that the construction delay of ROBs at LC - 108 was due to various hindrances at the site. By the said letter, the appellant requested the respondent to grant an extension of 264 days. The appellant contended that the delay in construction work has resulted in an additional financial burden on account of the establishment and overheads, etc., for a longer period than planned, for which the appellant would be claiming separately. By the reply dated 14th October 2013, the respondent informed the appellant that the statement of the appellant that it would be claiming separately for financial burden was not acceptable. The respondent stated that the claim would have to be considered along with the prayer for extension. Therefore, the respondent requested the appellant to submit a detailed claim immediately so that the prayer for an extension of time could be considered. Separate letters dated 30th August, 2013 were addressed by the appellant to the respondent regarding LC - 89 and LC - 228 for grant of extension by 430 and 437 days, respectively. By a letter dated 29th November, 2013, the respondent granted an extension of time as follows:

4. On 28th February, 2014, 09th April, 2014 and 19th April, 2014, the appellant again applied for a grant extension of time regarding LC Nos. 89, 228 and 108, respectively. By a letter dated 24th May, 2014, the respondent granted an extension of time as follows:

5. By letters dated 03rd September, 2014, the appellant submitted separate claims concerning the three ROBs for damages on account of the delay on the part of the respondent. By letters dated 14th October, 2014, the respondent rejected the claims. The appellant applied for further extension of time by letters dated 08th January, 2015. In response, the respondent addressed a letter dated 09th January, 2015 by which the appellant was called upon to give undertakings to the effect that the appellant will not claim anything extra other than escalation for the work executed. The appellant submitted