In the judgment attached the issue which fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was whether factual findings of an arbitrator can be challenged in a section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).
Facts in Brief
The parties had executed a contract between them for the purpose of constructing a college. In relation to the same there were delays in execution of the contract which led to invoking of the arbitral clause. It is however interesting to note that every time the respondents gave extensions to the petitioners it was on the understanding that no claims were to be entertained for compensation.
In relation to the arbitral award, the section 34 application was in relation to all the claims however only 3(three) of the claims [Claim nos. 4, 5 and 6] were pressed and the ground pleaded for the challenge was that the learned arbitrator failed to give a finding as to who was responsible for the delay.
Arbitral Award:
“……………………………….At that time also works were left incomplete. So there is no justification in demand for loss of any goodwill of the contractor. In this work, time was the essence of the contract. The contractor at the time of seeking Extension of Time(s) had not made any demands for payment of additional overheads, loss of profit and goodwill etc. due to his prolonged stay at the work site. He has also given 'No Claim Certificate' at the time of seeking Extension of time(s). As and when extension of time(s) were granted I find that claimants did not serve any notice to claim compensation in future by way of loss or damages due to prolongation of stipulated time/extended time for completion. During the period(s) extension of time was not sanctioned I find that contractor had continued to work and accepted running bill payments without any demur. The manner and conduct confirms that the contractor was willing to work without any additional demands. The claimants due to such action and conduct have waived off their right to claim any compensation at a later date for working beyond the stipulated date(s) of completion. Also no satisfactory evidence has been placed on record to substantiate claim of loss or damages suffered by them. In view of the above findings, the three claims as made out are not acceptable and they are rejected.”
Judgment and Analysis
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that, “The above findings of the Ld. Arbitrator are factual in nature and the same cannot be reappreciated in objections under Section 34. The Contractor, having sought extensions and having waived its right to claim compensation, rejection of claim nos.4, 5 & 6 cannot be faulted with. Insofar as THDC is concerned, it has accepted the award.”
Download Pdf
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
+91 11 23701284/5/7
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.