Contractual bars on prolongation claims do not override statutory rights to compensation for employer-attributable delays.

The Petitioner (Ministry of Health) awarded a contract worth Rs. 147.89 crores to the Respondent (NCC Ltd.) on 21.05.2010 for the construction of a Medical College and Hostel at AIIMS, Bhopal

The project, scheduled for 15 months, was significantly delayed, leading to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in 2015

On 08.05.2017, the Arbitrator passed a Final Award allowing several claims by the Respondent for prolongation costs, tax reimbursements, extra items, and escalation, while rejecting the Petitioner’s counter-claims

The Petitioner challenged this Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging patent illegality and violation of public policy

The court primarily applied Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the principle of minimal judicial interference unless an award is patently illegal or shocks the conscience of the court

It relied on Associate Builders v. DDA and Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. DMRC regarding the limited scope of review

The court further applied Sections 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding the right to compensation for breach of contract, despite restrictive clauses

It also followed K.N. Sathyapalan v. State of Kerala, which established that an arbitrator can award compensation for delays if the employer is at fault, regardless of a contractual bar

The Court upheld the Arbitrator’s attribution of delay to the Petitioner, noting that the Hindrance Register—a contemporaneous record signed by both parties—clearly documented defaults by the Ministry

Regarding the "no-damage" clauses (Clauses 6 and 40), the court found the Arbitrator's decision to grant compensation plausible, as the Petitioner’s breaches caused a three-fold prolongation of the project, making Sections 55 and 73 of the Contract Act applicable

On the interpretation of "trade" in Clause 12, the court held that since the term was ambiguous and undefined, the Arbitrator’s view—applying the 30% deviation limit to individual items—was a possible interpretation that could not be replaced by the court's view

For tax reimbursements (Claim 2), the court agreed that notice requirements under Clause 38 were directory rather than mandatory, as the clause did not prescribe a forfeiture of the right to reimbursement for non-compliance

Finally, the court found the use of CPWD Clause 10CC as a quantification formula for escalation to be reasonable for a prolonged contract

The court held that the Arbitrator's findings were substantiated by evidence (specifically the Hindrance Register) and represented a plausible interpretation of the contract

The court affirmed that an Arbitrator is the master of the quality and quantity of evidence and that judicial review cannot involve re-appreciating evidence or substituting the court's interpretation for that of the Arbitrator

All counter-claims were dismissed as the delays were fundamentally attributable to the Petitioner