Full Judgment Text
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 04 March, 2022
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 & I.As. 15549-50/2021
M/S KANWARJI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kanika Singh, Mr. Abhishek
Pande and Mr. Shailendra Haria,
Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat and Mr. Shourya
Dasgupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 [ hereinafter, “the Act” ] assails the arbitral award
th
dated 8 June, 2021 to the limited extent of Claims No. 2(2), 2(3), 4, 6, 8, 11
and 12 – which were rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.
F ACTS
2. The Petitioner – M/s Kanwarji Construction Company was awarded a
th
contract vide letter dated 29 December, 2008 – for the work of ‘C/o Police
Housing at Mandoli, Delhi. Sh: C/o 360 Nos Type III qtrs. with stilted parking
and other related development work’ [ hereinafter, the “Contract” ] by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 1 of 17
Respondent – Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [ hereinafter,
“GNCTD” ].
th
3. The scheduled date of commencing work under the Contract was 20
th
January, 2009 and the date of completion was 19 September, 2010.
However, owing to certain delays statedly on GNCTD’s part, there was a
prolongation of the Contract and the Petitioner had to remain at the site for
st
six additional years – till 1 October, 2016, and also subsequently, owing to
th
certain pending electrical work which was eventually completed on 5 June,
2017. There was no delay on the Petitioner’s part and an extension was
granted without levy of compensation by the GNCTD under Clause 2 of the
Contract qua compensation payable.
4. When disputes arose, pursuant to Petitioner’s invocation, GNCTD
appointed the Arbitrator. In the ensuing arbitration proceedings, the Petitioner
filed several claims – of which some were allowed and some rejected. The
scope of the present petition, as already noted above, is confined to the award
of claims that have been rejected.
5. The contentions of the parties and analysis thereof, is being dealt claim-
wise.
LAIM O UA XTRA TEMS ULY XECUTED BUT NOT AID
C N . 2 [ Q E I , D E P ]
6. Claim No. 2 was for certain extra items that the Petitioner alleged were
duly executed, yet, not paid for. The same consists of three parts: (1) Extra for
Surface Dressing; (2) Extra for additional lead up to 1.00 Km; and (3) Extra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 2 of 17
for additional lift of 1.5 M. Whereas, Claim No. 2(1) has been allowed by the
Arbitral Tribunal; Claims No. 2(2) and 2(3) were rejected.
7. Ms. Kanika Singh, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that Claims No.
2(2) and 2(3) have been rejected on the basis of perverse reasoning by the
Arbitrator, who has confused the said items with those under Claim No. 2(1)
and has rendered findings which were neither the pleaded case of the parties,
nor borne out from the terms placed on record.
th
8. Ms. Singh places reliance upon the letters dated 20 May, 2010 and
th
10 October, 2011 and contends that Petitioner had carried out extra work and
raised a claim against the same with GNCTD. The said communications were
never replied to, and ultimately, in 2017, when the final bill was approved,
the claims qua these extra items were rejected. She emphasises that the
Arbitrator has held in her favour on the question of claims being within
limitation. However, the findings given in paragraph no. 40 of the impugned
Award, are in complete contradiction with the record available on record. The
above-noted letters – whereby the Petitioner had raised the claims – were part
of the record, yet, never looked into by the Arbitrator. The findings rendered
by the Arbitrator, in paragraph 3(a) of the impugned Award, holding that
claims for extra items under Claim 2(2) and 2(3) are linked to Claim 2(1) –
are incorrect and contrary to the record and pleadings of both parties. In fact,
th
a bare perusal of the letter dated 29 September, 2009 would reveal that there
is no indication to such effect, as has been concluded by the Arbitrator.
9. Ms. Warisha Farasat, counsel appearing on behalf of GNCTD, at the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 3 of 17
outset, objects to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of
limited scope of interference of this Court under Section 34 of the Act and
places reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court on this aspect,
1
including MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited and Ssangyong Engineering
2
and Construction v. National Highways Authority of India . With respect
to merits of Claim No. 2, she submits that the Arbitrator’s findings are based
on the material placed on record. Since there was no evidence placed on
record by the Petitioner in respect of Claims No. 2(2) and 2(3), there was no
question of admissibility thereof. She further submits that there was never any
approval or authorisation from GNCTD with respect to the said claims raised
before the Arbitral Tribunal.
10. In respect of the afore-noted Claim, the findings of the learned
Arbitrator read as under:
“3. Having gone thru all the pleadings made by the parties and documents
placed on record, it is observed and held as under:
a. The claim of extra items under claims parts 2(2) and 2(3) are admittedly
linked to claimed item 2(1), already adjudicated herein above in preceding
part of this award.
b. Surface dressing had been originally carried out by the claimants at start
of work in Jan/ Feb 2009, which had definitely involved the earthwork
involving lead & lift. The measurements and payment thereof including lead
and lift considering condition no. 11 on page 145 of agreement, if any, have
not at all been disputed by the parties.
c. With the onset of monsoon during the intervening period between Feb 2009
and Jul/Oct 2009, admittedly only vegetation had cropped up. The evidence
of vegetation was provided to the respondents at the relevant time with
photographs. Therefore, Claimant were directed to remove it. the claim of
surface dressing has been admitted by the arbitral tribunal herein above
1
(2019) 4 SCC 163 [ See paragraphs no. 11-13].
2
(2019) 15 SCC 10 [ See paragraphs no. 37-40].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 4 of 17
accordingly.
d. The claim relates to items of lead & lift involving earthwork. Without
placing on record any details of measurements involving lead and lift, the
arbitral tribunal fails to comprehend by any stretch of imagination, any
major item of earthwork, excepting the claim 2(1) admitted herein above by
the arbitral tribunal for removal of vegetation, wild grass, shrubs, etc,
which cropped during the intervening period .
e . The claim relates to execution of measurable items of contracted work on
the format laid down by the department. All such interim payments are
advances against final bill in terms of Clause 7 of agreement. Hence the claim
not held as time barred.
f. Despite refusal to pay any extra item vide R-8 dated 29-09-2009, the
claimants went ahead with infructuous submissions vide C-21 dated 20-05-
2010 and C-22 dated 10-10-2011 but without any supporting measurements.
These did not require specific rejection. Under these circumstances the
judgment ‘Narain Das Israni v DDA 2005(85) DRJ 476(CJ2)’ is not
applicable in this mater.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. The rejected Claim relates to items of lead & lift involving earthwork.
The reasoning supplied by the arbitrator is not solely resting on the
th
observations made by GNCTD in their letter dated 29 September, 2009. In
paragraph no. 3(d) above, the Arbitrator observed that no details of
‘measurements involving lead and lift’ were placed before him. Thus, the
Arbitrator has adjudicated this claim on merits and returned a finding of fact
that there is no such material placed on record justifying the said claim.
Although Ms. Kanika Singh is correct in pointing out that communications
th th
dated 20 May, 2010 and 10 October, 2011, issued by Petitioner to GNCTD,
have been placed on record, however, whether such communications would
meet the requirements of the award of extra items, was something that had to
be demonstrated in arbitration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 5 of 17
12. In fact, GNCTD in their defence took categorical objection regarding
admissibility of the claim on the ground that it had never been approved.
GNCTD had also taken an objection regarding Clause 6A of the Contract –
which stipulates for the measurements for the extra work had to be submitted
along with the requisite approval. In absence of any such details being made
available before the Arbitral Tribunal or the Court (with the exception of the
th th
two communications dated 20 May, 2010 and 10 October, 2011), the Court
does not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Arbitrator qua
Claims 2(2) and 2(3), and thus, the challenge on this set of claims cannot
succeed.
CLAIM NO. 4 [R EIMBURSEMENT OF S ERVICE T AX ]
13. Claim No. 4 pertained to the reimbursement of service tax duly paid by
the Petitioner. To support this claim, Ms. Singh places reliance upon Clause
37 of the Contract, which reads as follows:
“CLAUSE 37
(i) Sales Tax/ VAT or any other tax on materials in respect of this contract
shall be payable le by the contractor and Government shall not entertain any
claim whatsoever in this respect.
(ii) The contractor shall deposit royalty and obtain necessary permit for
supply of the red bajri, stone, kankar, etc. from local authorities.
(iii) If pursuant to or under any law, notification or order any royalty, cess or
the like becomes payable by the Government of India and does not any lime
become payable by the contractor to the State Government. Local authorities
in respect of any material used by the contractor in the works then in
such a case, it shall be lawful to the Government of India and it will have the
right and be entitled to recover the amount paid in the circumstances as
aforesaid from dues of the contractor.”
14. The Arbitrator denied this claim by placing reliance upon another
clause which forms part of the ‘Instructions to Contractor’ as contained in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 6 of 17
Tender Document, which has been extracted in paragraph no. 3(v) of the
impugned Award under Claim No. 4 and reads as follows:
“v. The relevant extracts pertaining to this claim extracted from “Instruction
to Contractor” at 1st page of Tender Document (i.e. P- 105 of contract
agreement) issued to claimant are reproduced parawise as under:
1st para: “………The tenderer should also read the General
Conditions of Contract for CPWD Works 2008 with up-to-
date amendments/ correction slips, which is available as
Government of India Publications, however provisions in
the tender document shall prevail over the provisions
contained in the standard form .
2nd - 4th para: “………”
5th para: “Sales Tax/VAT, Excise Duty, Purchase tax, turn over tax,
Service Tax etc or any other tax on material shall be borne
by the contractor himself. The contractor shall quote his
rates considering all such taxes. ”
6th para: “………””
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. The Arbitrator held that in view of the explicit rider in the afore-noted
clause under the ‘Instructions to Contractor’, the Petitioner’s claim for
reimbursement of service tax cannot sustain for reasons disclosed in
paragraphs no. 3(c) and (d) of the impugned Award, which read as follows:
“c. It is observed from the foregoing that:
i. Not only Service Tax but also other taxes like Excise duty,
Purchase Tax, Turnover Tax, etc., were also to be included by
claimants in their quoted rates, which otherwise are not covered in
the standard Clauses 37 and 38 of Contract of Govt of India
publication at pages 1-100 of contract agreement.
ii. Claimants were duly instructed even before they quoted the rates
that they shall consider all such taxes in the rates to be quoted by
them.
d. In view of the explicit rider, as aforesaid, provided in 1st and 5th para of
Instructions to Contractor, over and above “General Conditions of Contract
for CPWD Works 2008 with up-to-date amendments/ correction slips”, all
the arguments of claimants except related to limitation, fail to justify their
claim.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 7 of 17
16. Ms. Singh has argued that ‘Instructions to Contractor’ cannot prevail
over the General Conditions of the Contract (“GCC”). The Arbitrator failed
to consider that GNCTD acknowledged the said claim by conduct. Petitioner
changed its position to its own detriment, giving rise to legitimate
expectations as also principles of estoppel and acquiescence, that the amount
paid as service tax would be reimbursed. The Arbitrator has completely
overlooked vital evidence that reimbursement of service tax was
acknowledged and entered into measurement books for payment in 2015 and
a Hand Receipt for payment was passed and challan was prepared for
payment in 2017. When GNCTD was fixing the rates of extra items, Petitioner
was led to believe that it would be reimbursed for the service tax component,
and therefore, it was induced not to include the same in the rates for extra
items. These critical issues have not been considered and there is no finding
on the same. On this submission, she places reliance upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Bentwood Seating System P. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of
3
India to submit that if vital issues and/ or contentions are not adjudicated
upon by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Award is liable to be set-aside.
17. The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions; however, no
merit is found in the same. The construction of terms of the Contract falls
exclusively within the domain of the Arbitrator. The interpretation given to
the conditions contained in the ‘Instructions to Contractor’, forming part of
the Tender document, cannot be said to be unreasonable or ex facie perverse.
The aforenoted clause in the ‘Instructions to Contractor’ provides that
3
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3989.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 8 of 17
provisions of the Tender document would prevail over the GCC provisions
contained in the Contract. It is also provided that the Contractor i.e., Petitioner
shall quote its rates, after due consideration of all taxes. The service tax is
thus, deemed to be included in the rates offered. The Petitioner cannot now
be permitted to turn around and contend that the component of service tax did
not form part of the quoted rates. The interpretation of the Arbitrator is in
consonance with the language of the clause.
18. Further, Petitioner’s contention – that since GNCTD had processed and
passed the bills, their conduct would amount to admission of claim – is an
incorrect submission. The terms and conditions of the Contract cannot be
novated by the conduct of the parties in the manner as suggested by Petitioner.
The processing of invoices by GNCTD cannot be contrary to the conditions
under the Tender document. In any event, no payment was made thereunder
and the administrative steps for processing cannot amount to admission of
liability. The Petitioner, with open eyes and having read the conditions under
the Tender document, made its bid and quoted its rates. There was consensus
between the parties regarding the rates, and at this stage, Petitioner cannot be
permitted to wriggle out of the same.
EIMBURSEMENT OF MOUNT ITHHELD QUA ANDING
CLAIM NO. 6 [R A W H
OVER OF THE UILDING
B ]
19. Petitioner claimed reimbursement of the amounts, which according to
them, were arbitrarily withheld on account of handing over the building.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 9 of 17
20. Ms. Singh contends that despite completion of the work in 2016,
GNCTD withheld an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in the final bill. The Arbitrator
has allowed this claim only to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs and rejected the
remaining claim of Rs. 17 lakhs. She submits that the findings are patently
illegal and contrary to the terms of the Contract. The finding of the Arbitrator
th
– that the date of completion of the work is to be considered as 5 July, 2019,
since the Petitioner continued to hold possession of the site until then – is
contrary to the contractual terms and evidence placed in arbitration. The
Contract only considers completion with regards to completion of work and
makes no reference to handing over. Completion of the work had been duly
st
recorded on 1 October, 2016 and the delay in handing over, was in fact,
attributable to GNCTD. On this aspect, she places reliance on the Petitioner’s
rd
letter dated 23 November, 2017. Ms. Singh points out that during cross-
examination, RW-1 admitted that ‘defect liability period’ was one year from
st
the date of completion of the work, i.e., 1 October, 2016. No letter was
written highlighting defects during this period, and thus, the finding of the
Arbitrator is entirely contrary to the evidence of GNCTD’s own witness. The
Arbitrator fell in error in saying that ‘defect liability period’ under Clause 17
of the Contract would not be applicable. This holding would amount to
rewriting the terms of the Contract. It is a settled position that the liability of
a contractor to carry out repairs is only during the ‘defect liability period’;
GNCTD’s own witness admits that no defect was pointed out during this
period. Thus, the Arbitrator fell in error in relying upon the letters written after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 10 of 17
the expiry of the defect liability period. Reliance is placed upon M/s
4
Associated Builders v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.
21. On this Claim, the final conclusion of the Arbitral Tribunal under this
Claim, is as follows:
m. Under the circumstances, pleadings of the parties and observations made
as above, it is held that:
i. For the purpose of this claim, the date of completion of the work to
be considered as 05-07-2019, being the date of handing over of the
flats.
ii. Rs 17 lacs being the estimate for rectification of defects intimated
to claimants vide R-88 dated 04-12-2019 is allowed to be deducted
from the withheld amount of Rs 20 lacs.
iii. Balance Rs 3 lacs are allowed in favour claimants.
The Arbitrator has allowed 17,00,000/- to be deducted being the estimate for
th
rectification of defects by relying upon the communication dated 4
December, 2019. The said communication, from GNCTD to the Petitioner,
reads as follows:
To
M/S Kanwarji Construction Company,
702/58, Sahyog Building, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019.
DATED: 04/12/2019
Subject – construction of Police Housing Complex for Delhi Police at
Mandoli, Delhi-93.
(Sub: C/O 360 nos. Type-Ill Quarters and its related development work.
Reference: This offices letter no. 54(47)/ Police Housing (Phase-1)/
PWD/EEOPD-2/2019-20/351 dated 04-09-2019
This is with reference to above mentioned letter. The department intimated
you that C/o 360 nos. Type III quarters have some defects and directed you
to immediately rectify the defects and intimate the department but till today
no rectification has been done by you. Thus, for rectifying fresh tenders will
be allotted wherein an estimated sum of Rs. 1,00,000 will be spend. The
4
(2012) 194 DLT 14 [ See paragraphs no. 14-15]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 11 of 17
rectification in the subject work will be done at your risk and cost and the
same will be recovered from the amount withheld by the department in the
final bill. This transmitted for your information.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OTHER PROJECT DIVISION-2
TRANSLATED COPY”
22. Ms. Farasat, on instructions, has very candidly stated that although the
th
communication dated 4 December, 2019 was filed before the Arbitral
Tribunal; however, the annexure thereto, which contains the Schedule of
Quantities – giving a breakup of the estimates regarding the defects – was not
filed. In view of the above, it transpires that the Arbitrator did not have any
material(s) to conclude that GNCTD suffered any damages or were entitled
to adjust the amount towards defect liability. It must also be noted that, in fact,
GNCTD never pressed that they incurred expenditure for carrying out the
defects. This renders the Award without evidence and entirely notional as
there is no proof of any actual amount spent in the communications relied
upon. It is settled law that there can be no notional claim for reimbursement/
rectification/ damages. In light thereof, the findings of the Arbitrator qua
Claim No. 6 are set aside.
23. Both counsels, on instructions, state that they would have no objection
in case the matter is referred back to the same Arbitral Tribunal for
adjudication on the afore-noted issue. Since the parties have jointly consented
to the matter being referred back to the same Tribunal, the request is allowed.
Claim No. 6 shall therefore be examined de novo by the Tribunal after hearing
both the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 12 of 17
CLAIM NO. 8 [C LAIM FOR ESCALATION UP TO DATE OF COMPLETION ]
24. Claim No. 8 was made qua the actual price escalation upto date of
completion of civil and electrical work.
25. Ms. Kanika Singh argues that Petitioner had to stay on site for nearly 7
years beyond the stipulated time, despite no delay being found attributable to
it and no compensation/ penalty being levied. Petitioner had to execute the
work much beyond the originally stipulated period, during which, the cost for
raw materials and labour increased. Therefore, the Petitioner claimed payment
as per the indices prevailing at the time when it actually executed the work.
These indices are admitted even by GNCTD, as it has noted the same in the
final bill and raised no dispute qua them. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner
had to incur an additional amount of Rs. 8,66,93,854/-, as calculated on the
basis of these indices, due to execution of work in the extended period. Thus,
in equity, Petitioner is liable to be compensated for this amount. Ms. Singh
also submits that the Escalation Clause – which fixes indices on the scheduled
date of completion – cannot be applied in such a case of inordinate delay. She
places reliance upon the judgments in Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. v. National
5
Thermal Power Corporation Limited and K.N. Sathyapalan (dead) by Lrs.
6
v. State of Kerala and Ors. , to state that even if not provided in a contract,
escalation can nonetheless be paid as compensation under the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.
26. On this aspect, the Arbitrator observed as follows:
5
2009 SCC Online Del 4109 [ See paragraph no. 7].
6
2006 (4) Arb LR 275 (SC) [ See paragraph no. 13-15].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 13 of 17
“3. Having gone thru all the pleadings made by the parties, documents,
citations and record of witnesses on record, it is held that:
a. The claim has emanated from the contract agreement and is
settleable based on:
i. Recorded measurements of work actually executed from time to time
and paid thereof based on interim RA bills, which was settleable up to
the date of finalization of bill.
ii. An existing escalation clause according to which escalation was
payable even during the extended period of completion in terms of
clause 5 of contract but without any action under clause 2 of the
contract.
Hence, the claim is not time barred.
b. The subject contract agreement already had an agreed formula for
compensating the claimant, based on which the claimant had amicably been
compensated.
c. But the claimant’s subject claim is for additional compensation
based on their own arguments, which is not acceptable being
beyond the terms of contract agreement.
d. The three citations relied by the claimants are found not
relevant to the subject contract as under:
i. CJ -18 Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited MANU/ DE/ 3364/ 2009 and Judgment of K.N.
Sathyapalan (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.(CJ 10- Para
20 and 22):These related to a firm price contract and did not have any
clause related to compensation on account of escalation during the
extended period of completion.
ii. Delhi Development Authority vs. N.N. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (CJ -30
Para 9,11): This related to a contract, wherein there was an escalation
clause for compensation but only up to the contracted date of
completion. There was no provision for compensation on account of
escalation during the extended period of completion under clause 5 but
without any action under clause 2 of contract.”
Essentially, the Arbitrator has relied upon the escalation clause – which is
applicable to the extended period of completion. Once having agreed to the
fact that for the extended period – the indices, as fixed in the Contract between
the parties would be applicable, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise
contrary to the same. The Petitioner’s contention, if accepted, would amount
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 14 of 17
to rewriting the terms of the Contract. Accordingly, the challenge to this
extent cannot succeed.
CLAIM NO. 11 [C LAIM FOR I NTEREST ON M ILESTONES W ITHHELD ]
27. This Claim is for interest on milestone that was allegedly withheld by
the GNCTD from October, 2010 to April, 2014.
28. Ms. Singh submits that certain amounts were withheld by GNCTD as
Petitioner was not able to catch up with the milestones fixed under the
Contract. Subsequently, GNCTD revised the milestone(s) and in terms
thereof, the payments withheld by GNCTD were released to the Petitioner.
She submits that since the amount withheld by GNCTD was subsequently
released on interest, Petitioner is entitled to be compensated by Award of
interest on the said amount. She further submits that Clause 2 of the Contract,
which has been relied upon by the Arbitrator is not applicable, as the said
clause would be attracted only if the Contractor catches up with the promised
work of specific milestones. She submits that in the instant case, the milestone
itself was changed by the GNCTD, therefore this Clause is not attracted.
29. On this aspect, the learned Arbitrator has observed as under:
“3. Having gone thru all the pleadings made by the parties, documents and
citation related to the claim, it is observed and held as under:
a. Claim is not time barred.
b. The contention of claimant of mixing the clause 2 and Clause 5 is
rejected with clarification as under:
i. Clause 5 relates only to Time and Progress Chart or its revision in
extended time for each specified/ rescheduled milestone(s). There is
no mention therein either on withholding amounts or interest
thereon for not achieving milestone(s).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 15 of 17
ii. Withholding of amount for not achieving a milestone is mentioned
not in clause 5, but in Clause 2. This withheld amount is to be finally
adjusted against levy of compensation, if any, at final extension of
time. Interest has been specifically barred in this clause on withheld
amounts, if any.
c. Other than on limitation, the arguments of respondents are
upheld.”
30. Admittedly, there was no catching up of milestones as envisaged under
Clause 2. The instant case is qua of rescheduling of milestones and extension
of time under Clause 5. The amounts were withheld by GNCTD on account
of Petitioner not meeting the milestones in terms of Clause 2 in the first
instance. However, subsequently, the amount was released as the milestones
were rescheduled. Although, it might not strictly be a case of catching up with
the milestones as stipulated in the Contract, nevertheless, clause 2 of the
Contract provides: “ however, no interest, whatsoever, shall be payable on
such withheld amount”. In that light, Petitioner’s claim for interest would be
contrary to the agreed upon terms of the Contract. Therefore, the view taken
by the Arbitrator, being a plausible one, based on interpretation of the terms
of the Contract, cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the challenge to this
extent cannot sustain.
CLAIM NO. 12 [E LECTRICITY G ENERATION C HARGES ]
31. Claim No. 12 pertains to electricity generation charges during the
extended period. The Arbitrator allowed this claim only in part to the extent
of Rs. 2,61,333/- for amounts incurred by the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 16 of 17
32. Ms. Singh, on instructions, very fairly states that the challenge qua this
claim, to the limited extent assailed, is no longer being pressed.
33. For the forgoing reasons, the petition is dismissed; except for the
challenge to Claim No. 6 – which stands disposed of in terms of the afore-
noted directions.
34. All pending application(s), if any, be disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 4, 2022
d.negi/nk
th
(Corrected and released on 11 April, 2022)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:11.04.2022
20:19:41
O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2021 Page 17 of 17