### Employer Liable for Delay Damages if Arbitrary Provisional Extensions Render Contractual Time-Extension Provisions Inoperative Summary: The High Court of Delhi upheld an arbitral award holding the Employer liable for delays caused by site encumbrances and technical errors. The Court affirmed that granting "provisional" extensions while ignoring the Engineer’s assessment of Employer-led delays disentitled the Employer from levying liquidated damages and justified the award of overhead costs and bank guarantee charges to the Contractor.

The Petitioner (MORT&H/PWD) invited bids for the rehabilitation and upgradation of a section of NH-217 in Odisha. An agreement was signed on March 21, 2014, with a 730-day completion period.

The project faced significant delays from the outset due to discrepancies in benchmarks (TBM values) and failure to hand over encumbrance-free land.

Despite granting several extensions of time (EOT) without liquidated damages (LD) until March 31, 2022, the Petitioner prematurely closed the contract effective May 31, 2022.

Post-closure, the Petitioner imposed LD and recovered the amount by invoking Performance Bank Guarantees (PBG).

The Respondent (contractor) had also undergone Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) between 2018 and 2021.

A three-member Arbitral Tribunal awarded the Respondent ₹48.57 Crores, finding the Petitioner responsible for the delays. The Petitioner challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court primarily applied Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which restricts judicial interference to "patent illegality" or "conflict with public policy," excluding re-appreciation of evidence.

It relied on Associate Builders v. DDA and Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI regarding the limited scope of review and the definition of perversity.

Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, was applied to exclude the moratorium period for limitation purposes.

The court also invoked Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding the effect of accepting performance at a time other than agreed upon, and and the Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (Supreme Court) regarding COVID-19 limitation tolling.

The court found that the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision was based on a thorough examination of evidence, including the Engineer’s own letters which admitted that delays—such as land encumbrances and TBM discrepancies—were beyond the contractor's control.

Regarding limitation, the court affirmed that the period during which the Respondent was under CIRP must be excluded under Section 60(6) of the IBC, and additional relief was provided by the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 tolling orders; thus, the 2023 invocation for a 2022 closure was timely.

On the merits of LD, the court upheld the view that once an employer grants extensions without reserving the right to claim damages or by leading the contractor to believe no LD would be levied, they cannot retrospectively impose penalties after performance is accepted.

The court also noted that the Petitioner failed to file its claims before the Resolution Professional during the CIRP, thereby extinguishing their counter-claims under the principle of Ghanshyam Mishra v. Edelweiss.

The court dismissed the Section 34 petition and upheld the Arbitral Award in its entirety, affirmed the refund of encashed PBGs (Claim 1) and the compensation for overheads, machinery, and GST (Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7) while maintaining that the Petitioner’s counter-claims stood extinguished. The Petition and all pending applications were dismissed.