Full Judgment Text
$~94
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 12.08.2025
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 CM APPL. 11925/2017
CM APPL. 45265/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, ASC, Ms. Akita
Bhadouriya, Mr Parvin Bansal,
Advocates and Mr Ajay Shrivastava,
AE(L) in person.
versus
NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priya Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Ms. Roma
Bedi and Mr. Yash Sharma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby, challenge is made to order dated
29.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 218/2015,
which is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 08.09.2014 passed by the
Arbitrator.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 1 of 17
2. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has in
paragraph 26 stated as under:-
“26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that
there is no infirmity in the award published by the Arbitral
Tribunal. No interference is called for in view of the scope of
interference while deciding the objections, as it is evident from
the award that the Arbitral Tribunal has not acted arbitrarily,
irrationally or independently of the contract nor had travelled
outside the bounds of the contract or the award passed is
without jurisdiction. Therefore, the objections are dismissed.
Pending applications also stands dispose of.”
3. Some of the facts to be noted are that on 26.03.2003, an agreement in
respect of construction of District Court Complex at Sector-16, Dwarka,
New Delhi was entered between the appellant and the respondent. As per the
agreement, the date of commencement of work was decided by the parties to
be 05.04.2003 and the stipulated date of completion of work was
04.10.2005.On 26.07.2003, a letter was issued by the appellant stating that
it is evident from the progress of work that the respondent was not able to
achieve the required progress.
4. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent was not executing
the contract as per the schedule stipulated in the agreement. It was also the
case of the appellant that the Superintending Engineer has imposed penalty
on the respondent on the ground of delay in execution of the work. This
according to the appellant, empowers the Superintending Engineer to take
such an action in terms of Clause 2. The contract also stipulated that the
decision of the Superintending Engineer would be final and binding as per
the Arbitration Clause 25. Such a dispute would be outside the purview of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 2 of 17
the arbitration clause. The effect of the decision of the Superintending
Engineer was the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent, was encashed
by the appellant.
5. As dispute(s) arose, the same became the subject matter of
adjudication before the learned Arbitrator appointed by this Court. The
learned Arbitrator has granted an amount of ₹2,93,57,480/- which is a claim
made by the respondent herein. The amount is of the bank guarantee which
has been furnished by the respondent. It may be necessary to state here that
even the appellant herein has also made a counter claim for ₹1,32,27,380/-
on the ground that the said amount is the balance amount remaining to be
recovered from the respondent after adjusting the amount of ₹2,93,57,480/-.
Suffice to state that the learned Arbitrator has awarded the claims in favour
of the respondent herein. The counter claim of the appellant was rejected.
The subject matter of the present appeal is only in respect of claim no. 11
against which a sum of ₹2,93,57,480/- has been awarded.
6. The plea advanced before the learned Single Judge was that the claim
no.11 was not arbitrable, in as much as, on a reading of clauses 2 and 25, the
same is an excepted matter.
7. The said plea was rejected by the learned Single Judge by holding in
paragraphs 21, 22 & 23 as under:-
“21. The sole Arbitrator has held that the dispute raised by the
respondent is arbitrable, as a party cannot be a judge in its
own cause, therefore, the Superintendent Engineer cannot
determine the party responsible for the delay, therefore, there is
no force in the submission of the petitioner that the dispute
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 3 of 17
would not fall for consideration and adjudication before the
Arbitrator. If there is a concluded and undisputed fact
regarding the contractor being responsible for the delay, no
doubt under those circumstances the compensation determined
by the Authority may not be arbitrable. However, the plea
raised by the petitioner was not raised when the performance
bank guarantees were invoked. The stand at that time was that
the small part of the work was not completed by the contractor.
Even then, what is made final and binding under the said
clause is only the calculation of damages found payable by the
contractor at a rate lower than those prescribed in the contract.
No doubt, it is true that the clause 2 of the contract deals with
the compensation for delay if the contractor fails to maintain
the required progress. This compensation can be maintainable
only if there is no dispute regarding the responsibility of the
contractor for the failure to maintain the progress.
22. The said provision of Clause 2 of the GCC does not prohibit
the claims raised. What is made final and binding under the
said Clause is only the calculation of damages if found payable
by the Contractor at a rate lower than those prescribed in the
contract. This decision can be made by the Superintending
Engineer only if there was no dispute in respect of the
Contractor being in breach of the contract or responsible for
the delays/prolongation. Such disputes cannot be adjudicated
by the authority mentioned in the Contract, and this would
necessarily fall in the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator or the
Court, as the case may be. It is based on the principle that no
party can be a judge in its own cause.
23. Clause-2 has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the
case of J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,
(2011) 5 SCC 758, the Court held as under :
“13. Claim 3 was for refund of security deposit of Rs.1,00,000.
The respondents had encashed the bank guarantee for Rs. 1
lakh which had been issued in lieu of security deposit and
forfeited the same on the ground that the contractor was in
breach. The arbitrator held that the contractor was not in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 4 of 17
breach and the forfeiture was illegal and directed that the said
sum of rupees one lakh should be refunded to the contractor.
14. Claim 11 was for Rs. 54,03,669 being the loss of
anticipated profit in regard to the value of the unexecuted work
which would have been executed by the contractor if the
contract had not been rescinded by the respondents. The
contractor contended that the termination was in breach of the
contract and but for such termination the contractor would
have legitimately completed the work and earned a profit of
15%. The arbitrator held that the respondents were
responsible for the delay, that the contractor was not in breach
and the termination was therefore illegal. He held that the
value of the work which could not be executed by the
contractor due to wrongful termination, was Rs. 3,91,21,589
and 10% thereof would be the standard estimate of the loss of
profits and consequently awarded Rs. 39,12,000 towards the
loss of profits, which the contractor would have earned but for
the wrongful termination of the contract by the respondents.
15. As per the arbitration agreement [contained in Clause (25)
of the contract] all questions and disputes relating to the
contract, execution or failure to execute the work, whether
arising during the progress of the work or after the completion
or abandonment thereof, “except where otherwise provided in
the contract”, had to be referred to and settled by arbitration.
The High Court held that Claims 1, 3 and 11 of the contractor
were not arbitrable as they related to excepted matters in
regard to which the decisions of the Superintending Engineer
or the Engineer-in-charge had been made final and binding
under Clauses (2) and (3) of the agreement.
16. We may refer to the relevant provisions of the said contract
document, that is, Clauses (2), (3)(Part) and (25)(Part) to
decide whether Claims 1, 3 and 11 were excepted matters,
excluded from arbitration:
Clause (2)
“The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 5 of 17
tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall
be deemed to be essence of the contract and shall be
reckoned from the tenth day after the date on which the order
to commence the work is issued to the contractor. The work
shall throughout the stipulated period of the contract be
proceeded with all due diligence and the contractor shall pay
as compensation an amount equal to one per cent or such
smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer (whose
decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the amount
of the estimated cost of the whole work as shown in the
tender, for every day that the work remains uncommenced or
unfinished after the proper dates. And further to ensure good
progress during the execution of the work, the contractor
shall be bound in all cases in which the time allowed for any
work exceeds one month (save for special jobs) to complete
one-eighth of the whole of the work before one-fourth of the
whole time allowed under the contract has elapsed, three-
eighths of the works before one-half of such time has elapsed
and three-fourths of the work before three-fourths of such
time has elapsed. However for special jobs if a time schedule
has been submitted by the contractor and the same has been
accepted by the Engineer-in-charge. The contractor shall
comply with the said time schedule. In the event of the
contractor failing to comply with this condition, he shall be
liable to pay as compensation an amount equal to one per
cent or such small amount as the Superintending Engineer
(whose decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the
said estimated cost of the whole work for every day that the
due quantity of work remains incomplete. Provided always
that the entire amount of compensation to be paid under the
provisions of this clause shall not exceed ten per cent, on the
estimated cost of the work as shown in the tender.”
Clause (3)
“The Engineer-in-charge may without prejudice to his right
against the contractor in respect of any delay or inferior
workmanship or otherwise or to any claims for damage in
respect of any breaches of the contract and without prejudice
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 6 of 17
to any rights or remedies under any of the provisions of this
contract or otherwise and whether the date of completion has
or has not elapsed by notice in writing absolutely determine
the contract in any of the following cases:
(i) If the contractor having been given by the Engineerin-
charge a notice in writing to rectify, reconstruct or replace
any defective work or that the work is being performed in any
inefficient or other improper or unworkmanlike manner, shall
omit to comply with the requirements of such notice for a
period of seven days thereafter or if the contractor shall
delay or suspend the execution of the work so that either in
the judgment of the Engineer-in-charge (whose decision shall
be final and binding) he will be unable to secure completion
of the work by the date of completion or he has already failed
to complete the work by that date….
(ii) (not relevant)
(iii) If the contractor commits breach of any of the terms and
conditions of this contract.
(iv) If the contractor commits any acts mentioned in Clause
(21) hereof.
When the contractor has made himself liable for action under
any of the cases aforesaid, the Engineer-incharge on behalf
of the President of India shall have powers:
(a) To determine or rescind the contract as aforesaid (of
which termination or rescission notice in writing to the
contractor under the hand of the Engineer-incharge shall be
conclusive evidence) upon such determination or rescission
the security deposit of the contractor shall be liable to be
forfeited and shall be absolutely at the disposal of the
Government.
(b) (not relevant)
(c) After giving notice to the contractor to measure up the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 7 of 17
work of the contractor and to take such part thereof as shall
be unexecuted out of his hands and to give it to another
contractor to complete in which case any expenses which
may be incurred in excess of the sum which would have been
paid to the original contractor if the whole work had been
executed by him (of the amount of which excess the certificate
in writing of the Engineer-in-charge shall be final and
conclusive) shall be borne and paid by the original
contractor and may be deducted from any money due to him
by the Government under this contract or on any other
account whatsoever or from his security deposit or the
proceeds of sales thereof or a sufficient part thereof as the
case may be.
In the event of any one or more of the above courses being
adopted by the Engineer-in-charge the contractor shall have
no claim to compensation for any loss sustained by him by
reason of his having purchased or procured any materials or
entered into any engagements or made any advances on
account of or with a view to the execution of the work or the
performance of contract. And in case action is taken under
any of provisions aforesaid, the contractor shall not be
entitled to recover or be paid any sum for any work thereof
or actually performed under this contract unless and until the
Engineer-in-charge has certified in writing the performance
of such work and the value payable in respect thereof and he
shall only be entitled to be paid the value so certified.”
Clause (25)
“Except where otherwise provided in the contract all
questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the
specifications, designs, drawings and instructions
hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship
or materials used on the work or as to any other question,
claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising
out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings,
specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these
conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 8 of 17
execution of failure to execute the same whether arising
during the progress of the work or after the completion or
abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration
of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD in
charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be no
Chief Engineer the administrative head of the said CPWD at
the time of such appointment. It will be no objection to any
such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a
government servant, that he had to deal with the matters to
which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties
as government servant he has expressed views on all or any
of the matters in dispute or difference.”
17. Clauses (2) and (3) of the contract relied upon by the
respondents no doubt make certain decisions by the
Superintending Engineer and Engineer-in-charge final/final
and binding/final and conclusive, in regard to certain matters.
But the question is whether Clauses (2) and (3) of the
agreement stipulate that the decision of any authority is final
in regard to the responsibility for the delay in execution and
consequential breach and therefore exclude those issues from
being the subject-matter of arbitration. We will refer to and
analyse each of the “excepted matters” in Clauses (2) and (3)
of the agreement to find their true scope and ambit:
(i) Clause (2) provides that if the work remains
uncommenced or unfinished after proper dates, the
contractor shall pay as compensation for every day's delay
an amount equal to 1% or such small amount as the
Superintending Engineer (whose decision in writing shall be
final) may decide on the estimated cost of the whole work as
shown in the tender. What is made final is only the decision
of the Superintending Engineer in regard to the percentage of
compensation payable by the contractor for every day's
delay, that is, whether it should be 1% or lesser. His decision
is not made final in regard to the question as to why the work
was not commenced on the due date or remained unfinished
by the due date of completion and who was responsible for
such delay.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 9 of 17
(ii) Clause (2) also provides that if the contractor fails to
ensure progress as per the time schedule submitted by the
contractor, he shall be liable to pay as compensation an
amount equal to 1% or such smaller amount as the
Superintending Engineer (whose decision in writing shall be
final) may decide on the estimated cost of the whole work for
every day the due quantity of the work remains incomplete,
subject to a ceiling of ten per cent. This provision makes the
decision of the Superintending Engineer final only in regard
to the percentage of compensation (that is, the quantum) to
be levied and not on the question as to whether the contractor
had failed to complete the work or the portion of the work
within the agreed time schedule, whether the contractor was
prevented by any reasons beyond its control or by the acts or
omissions of the respondents, and who is responsible for the
delay.
(iii) The first part of Clause (3) provides that if the contractor
delays or suspends the execution of the work so that either in
the judgment of the Engineer-incharge (which shall be final
and binding), he will be unable to secure the completion of
the work by the date of completion or he has already failed to
complete the work by that date, certain consequences as
stated therein, will follow. What is made final by this
provision is the decision of the Engineer-in-charge as to
whether the contractor will be able to secure the completion
of the work by the due date of completion, which could lead
to the termination of the contract or other consequences. The
question whether such failure to complete the work was due
to reasons for which the contractor was responsible or the
Department was responsible, or the question whether the
contractor was justified in suspending the execution of the
work, are not matters in regard to which the decision of the
Engineer-in-charge is made final.
(iv) The second part of Clause (3) of the agreement provides
that where the contractor had made himself liable for action
as stated in the first part of that clause, the Engineer-in-
charge shall have powers to determine or rescind the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 10 of 17
contract and the notice in writing to the contractor under the
hand of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive evidence
of such termination or rescission. This does not make the
decision of the Engineer-in-charge as to the validity of
determination or rescission, valid or final. In fact it does not
make any decision of the Engineer-in-charge final at all. It
only provides that if a notice of termination or rescission is
issued by the Engineer-in-charge under his signature, it shall
be conclusive evidence of the fact that the contract has been
rescinded or determined.
(v) After determination or rescission of the contract, if the
Engineer-in-charge entrusts the unexecuted part of the work
to another contractor, for completion, and any expense is
incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to
the original contractor if the whole work had been executed
by him, the decision in writing of the Engineer-in-charge in
regard to such excess shall be final and conclusive, shall be
borne and paid by the original contractor. What is made final
is the actual calculation of the difference or the excess, that
is, if the value of the unexecuted work as per the contract
with the original contractor was Rs. 1 lakh and the cost of
getting it executed by an alternative contractor was Rs.
1,50,000 what is made final is the certificate in writing issued
by the Engineer-in-charge that Rs. 50,000 is the excess cost.
The question whether the determination or rescission of the
contractor by the Engineer-in-charge is valid and legal and
whether it was due to any breach on the part of the
contractor, or whether the contractor could be made liable to
pay such excess, are not issues on which the decision of
Engineer-in-charge is made final.
18. Thus what is made final and conclusive by Clauses (2) and
(3) of the agreement, is not the decision of any authority on the
issue whether the contractor was responsible for the delay or
the Department was responsible for the delay or on the
question whether termination/rescission is valid or illegal.
What is made final, is the decisions on consequential issues
relating to quantification, if there is no dispute as to who
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 11 of 17
committed breach. That is, if the contractor admits that he is in
breach, or if the arbitrator finds that the contractor is in
breach by being responsible for the delay, the decision of the
Superintending Engineer will be final in regard to two issues.
The first is the percentage (whether it should be 1% or less) of
the value of the work that is to be levied as liquidated damages
per day. The second is the determination of the actual excess
cost in getting the work completed through an alternative
agency. The decision as to who is responsible for the delay in
execution and who committed breach is not made subject to
any decision of the respondents or its officers, nor accepted
from arbitration under any provision of the contract.
19. In fact the question whether the other party committed
breach cannot be decided by the party alleging breach. A
contract cannot provide that one party will be the arbiter to
decide whether he committed breach or the other party
committed breach. That question can only be decided by only
an adjudicatory forum, that is, a court or an Arbitral
Tribunal.”
8. We may also at this stage state paragraphs 14-15 of the order of the
learned Single Judge which we reproduce as under:-
“14. The contention of the petitioner is that the Clause 2 of the
Agreement which deals with the compensation for delay if the
contractor fails to maintain the required progress read along
with Clause 25 makes the determination of the Superintending
Engineer final and binding and therefore, the Arbitral tribunal
could not have examined this issue.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed the
challenge only on the ground that Claim No.11 was not
arbitrable on account of Clause 2 read with 25 of the
Agreement.”
9. The plea of Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel for appellant, is that
the learned Single Judge has erred in deciding the issue which was raised by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 12 of 17
the appellant before the learned Single Judge, that the claim no. 11 is not
arbitrable as untenable. He states, no doubt that the aspect of the delay in
execution of work being attributable to the respondent is collateral issue,
which can be decided, but there is no finding on that. In the absence of any
finding on delay, the claim no.11 could not have been allowed in favour of
the respondent. He submits that there is enough evidence on record to show
that the delay in executing the contract was attributable to the respondent
and as such, on no ground the claim could have been allowed in favour of
the respondent.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Priya Kumar, learned Senior counsel for
respondent justifies the conclusion drawn by learned Arbitrator in awarding
claim no. 11. She states that a reading of clauses 2 and 25 only denotes that
it is the penalty imposed by the Superintending Engineer which is final and
not a collateral issue that is at whose behest the delay has occurred in
executing the work, which is the basis for imposing penalty by the
Superintending Engineer. The learned Arbitrator has rightly held that the
issue of refund sought by the respondent from the appellant in terms of
claim no. 11 is arbitrable and could be decided and granted by holding that
the delay occurred not at the behest of the respondent. In this regard, she
draws our attention to the award of the learned Arbitrator to contend that
there is a clear finding of the learned Arbitrator that the delay, if any, was
not attributable to the respondent herein.
11. She says that the aforesaid conclusion of the learned Arbitrator
negates the submission of Mr. Sannu that there is no finding of the learned
Arbitrator on the said issue.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 13 of 17
ANALYSIS:
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the
conclusion drawn by the learned Arbitrator, as upheld by the learned Single
Judge, as highlighted by Ms. Kumar. Ms. Kumar is justified in relying upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd
Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 5 SSC 758, wherein, the Supreme
Court has, on a similar issue held in paragraph 17 stated as under:-
“17. Clauses (2) and (3) of the contract relied upon by the
respondents no doubt make certain decisions by the
Superintending Engineer and Engineer-in-charge final/final
and binding/final and conclusive, in regard to certain matters.
But the question is whether Clauses (2) and (3) of the
agreement stipulate that the decision of any authority is final in
regard to the responsibility for the delay in execution and
consequential breach and therefore exclude those issues from
being the subject-matter of arbitration. We will refer to and
analyse each of the “excepted matters” in Clauses (2) and (3)
of the agreement to find their true scope and ambit:
(i) Clause (2) provides that if the work remains uncommenced
or unfinished after proper dates, the contractor shall pay as
compensation for every day's delay an amount equal to 1% or
such small amount as the Superintending Engineer (whose
decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the estimated
cost of the whole work as shown in the tender. What is made
final is only the decision of the Superintending Engineer in
regard to the percentage of compensation payable by the
contractor for every day's delay, that is, whether it should be
1% or lesser. His decision is not made final in regard to the
question as to why the work was not commenced on the due
date or remained unfinished by the due date of completion
and who was responsible for such delay.
(ii) Clause (2) also provides that if the contractor fails to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 14 of 17
ensure progress as per the time schedule submitted by the
contractor, he shall be liable to pay as compensation an
amount equal to 1% or such smaller amount as the
Superintending Engineer (whose decision in writing shall be
final) may decide on the estimated cost of the whole work for
every day the due quantity of the work remains incomplete,
subject to a ceiling of ten per cent. This provision makes the
decision of the Superintending Engineer final only in regard
to the percentage of compensation (that is, the quantum) to be
levied and not on the question as to whether the contractor
had failed to complete the work or the portion of the work
within the agreed time schedule, whether the contractor was
prevented by any reasons beyond its control or by the acts or
omissions of the respondents, and who is responsible for the
delay.
(iii) The first part of Clause (3) provides that if the contractor
delays or suspends the execution of the work so that either in
the judgment of the Engineer-incharge (which shall be final
and binding), he will be unable to secure the completion of
the work by the date of completion or he has already failed to
complete the work by that date, certain consequences as
stated therein, will follow. What is made final by this
provision is the decision of the Engineer-in-charge as to
whether the contractor will be able to secure the completion
of the work by the due date of completion, which could lead to
the termination of the contract or other consequences. The
question whether such failure to complete the work was due
to reasons for which the contractor was responsible or the
Department was responsible, or the question whether the
contractor was justified in suspending the execution of the
work, are not matters in regard to which the decision of the
Engineer-in-charge is made final.
(iv) The second part of Clause (3) of the agreement provides
that where the contractor had made himself liable for action
as stated in the first part of that clause, the Engineer-in-
charge shall have powers to determine or rescind the contract
and the notice in writing to the contractor under the hand of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 15 of 17
the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive evidence of such
termination or rescission. This does not make the decision of
the Engineer-in-charge as to the validity of determination or
rescission, valid or final. In fact it does not make any decision
of the Engineer-in-charge final at all. It only provides that if a
notice of termination or rescission is issued by the Engineer-
in-charge under his signature, it shall be conclusive evidence
of the fact that the contract has been rescinded or determined.
(v) After determination or rescission of the contract, if the
Engineer-in-charge entrusts the unexecuted part of the work
to another contractor, for completion, and any expense is
incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to
the original contractor if the whole work had been executed
by him, the decision in writing of the Engineer-in-charge in
regard to such excess shall be final and conclusive, shall be
borne and paid by the original contractor. What is made final
is the actual calculation of the difference or the excess, that
is, if the value of the unexecuted work as per the contract with
the original contractor was Rs. 1 lakh and the cost of getting
it executed by an alternative contractor was Rs. 1,50,000
what is made final is the certificate in writing issued by the
Engineer-in-charge that Rs. 50,000 is the excess cost. The
question whether the determination or rescission of the
contractor by the Engineer-in-charge is valid and legal and
whether it was due to any breach on the part of the
contractor, or whether the contractor could be made liable to
pay such excess, are not issues on which the decision of
Engineer-in-charge is made final.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. She is also justified in highlighting the conclusion drawn by the
learned Arbitrator to hold that because five agencies were engaged by the
appellant and were simultaneously working in the premises of Court
building, hindrances were caused due to interconnected nature of works
being exercised by the five agencies. This conclusion of the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 16 of 17
Arbitrator has not been contested by the appellant.
14. From the above, it is clear that the learned Arbitrator has rightly held
that the delay in executing the work cannot be attributed to the respondent
herein. We agree with the said conclusion. The same has been upheld by the
learned Single Judge. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The same is
dismissed.
15. The pending applications also stand dismissed, being infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
VINOD KUMAR, J
AUGUST 12, 2025
rk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025
16:51:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 36/2020 Page 17 of 17