Bombay High Court
M/S. Shah Jagshi Jethabhai vs J.N. Construction on 6 February, 2012
Author: Anoop V. Mohta
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1 arbp348.09.sxw
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 348 OF 2009
M/s. Shah Jagshi Jethabhai,
549, Meru Towers-A,
Jame Jamshed Road, Matunga (C.R.),
Mumbai-400 019. ......Petitioner.
Vs.
J.N. Construction,
701, Horizon View, 1/A,
Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows,
Versova, Mumbai 400 061. ......Respondents.
Mr. Sanjay Kothari a/w Ms. Sheeja John i/by M/s. M.P. Savla & Co. for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Kishore M. Jawale a/w Mr. Zulfikar Jariwala i/by M/s. Thakore
Jariwala & Associates for the Respondents.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 2 DECEMBER 2011
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 6 FEBRUARY 2012.
JUDGMENT:-
The Petitioner-original Respondent, has challenged under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 2 arbp348.09.sxw ssm Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), the impugned award dated 16 January 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator.
2 The operative part of the award is as under:-
"a) I AWARD in favour of the Claimants as against the Respondents, the sum of Rs.22,56,286.80 (Rupees twenty two lakhs fifty six thousand two hundred eight six and eighty paise only) AND I DIRECT the Respondents to pay the said amount together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 30th April, 2005 till payment.
b) There will be no order as to costs."
3 The Petitioner's firm at the relevant time, doing the business of
construction. The Respondent is a Civil Contractor. The Respondent was engaged for construction of a building on the terms and conditions recorded in the letter dated 15 May 2002. The work was not completed for various reasons within stipulated time. The same was completed on 30 April 2005. The final bills were paid accordingly. However, the Respondent (Claimant) demanded further amount on the basis of alleged unpaid bill and the compensation for delays. The Petitioner by letter dated 7 June 2005 resisted the said demand. Therefore, the Respondent in view of the agreed arbitration ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 :::
3 arbp348.09.sxw ssm clause, filed a Petition on 23 June 2005 under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was appointed by the Court on 25 August 2006.
4 The statement of claim was filed before the sole Arbitrator on 17 November 2006. The reply was filed on 15 February 2007, and rejoinder on 13 March 2007. The Respondent did not lead any oral evidence to support his claim. He claimed `4,56,136.80/- towards the alleged outstanding bill. He also claimed damages of `1,32,22,900/-
for alleged delays and disruptions attributable to the Petitioner.
5 The Petitioner led evidence. On 8 December 2008, the arguments before the sole Arbitrator were concluded. Certain claims were not pressed by the Respondent before the Arbitrator i.e. 1 lacs towards the delayed payment of bills, `6,95,600/- towards the alleged loss of profit, the claim towards restructure rates during the extended period reduced to `27 lacs from `54 lacs as claimed. A claim for damages was restricted to `97,27,300/-.
6 The Arbitrator, though evidence was not lead by the Respondent, granted `4,56,136.80/- towards the outstanding bill and an amount of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 4 arbp348.09.sxw ssm `18,00,150/- towards damages in favour of the Respondent, by holding that as both the parties responsible for the 11 months delay, the half damages have been awarded, by calculating @ `3,27,300/-
p.m. and divided it by 11 months. The other claims including under utilization of tools and tackles and restructure rates during the extended period were rejected as there was no material in support.
The interest was granted @ 12% p.m. from 30 April 2005 i.e. the date of demand, till the payment.
7 Apart from other clauses including scope of work, rate, mode of measurement, mode of payment, duties and responsibilities of the Site Engineer, relevant terms and conditions have been reflected in the letter/agreement dated 15 May 2002. The relevant terms and conditions are as under:-
"2. The whole of the work shall be completed and delivered within stipulated period of time as decided mutually which shall be of 'A' grade standard as per prevailing ISI Code. If work is not completed as per bar chart prepared mutually, penalty will be charged on Contractor as decided by our Architect/ Engineer in-charge. If the work is completed ahead of Schedule then appropriate bonus shall be paid"
"3. The contractor shall keep qualified and competent Civil Engineers in-charge on full time basis ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 5 arbp348.09.sxw ssm exclusively for our site (minimum 8 years experience in building construction) who shall be responsible for the carrying out the work to the true meaning of the drawings, specification and instruction throughout the period till completion of our Project."
"14. In case of any discrepancy on the part of contractor of disputes between the parties, the same will be referred to a nearest Architect as a Arbitration to sort out the matter and his decision will be final and binding on both the parties. For any dispute Mumbai, Maharashtra will be jurisdiction for any court."8
Admittedly, by letter dated 23 May 2002, the Respondent submitted a bar chart for construction of the building and expressed to complete the work in 11 months. It was forwarded by the Respondent with the bar chart. The Petitioner has received the same on 24 May 2002. It is apparent that though it is mentioned that the chart was prepared after discussion with Mr. Jadeja, but it was never mutually prepared chart. It was unilateral chart given by the Respondent to complete the work knowing the background. There was no material brought on record to show that the Petitioner mutually agreed to the chart or time so fixed to complete the construction within 11 months. The Petitioner even in his evidence denied to have fixed such mutual period to complete the construction.
Admittedly, there was no time period fixed and/or mentioned in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 6 arbp348.09.sxw ssm agreement except the unilateral chart. Admittedly, the claimant-
Respondent not led any evidence nor made any pleadings as to when, how and where such mutual decisions were taken and agreed by the Petitioner. It was obligation as per clause 3 (a) on the Respondent to prepare and maintain the bar chart by revising it periodically in consultation with the Petitioner as per actual progress of the work.
There was also nothing on record to show that the Respondent acted or proceeded on the basis of any bar chart or any revised bar chart, neither there was any complaints of any kind with regard to the delay in project as alleged and claimed by the Respondent. The Respondent failed to bring on record supporting documents and evidence to prove the allegations. As party, though made allegations and/or raised huge claim and as admittedly reduced and/or give a number of claims during the course of hearing, but still not lead any evidence to support the claim and/or billing so raised and specially the claim for damages due to delay, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the Respondent. As they could not have provided their own case and/or same would have gone against him basically when the burden lies upon the claimant to prove the breach, if any, on a foundation that he had to maintain the recourse and the progress of the work and/or prepared the work chart.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 :::7 arbp348.09.sxw ssm 9 The Respondent was fully aware even at the time of submitting the 11 months chart that entire building was not available to carry out the work as the bank had not vacated the premises. The Respondent having once knowledge of this fact that they give possession of whole/ part of building unless the bank vacated the premises, the case that they have prepared the chart mutually to complete the project within 11 months and as no contrary evidence led that itself destroy the Respondents case on various aspects, basically when the contract nowhere shows and/or mentioned about the availability of the vacant building to commence the work within and/or particular date. The Respondent, therefore, had reduced substantial number of claims during the course of argument having noted their own defects and lacunas for want of pleadings, as well as, documents to substantiate the same by not leading any evidence to support the same and also for the fact that the Petitioner has denied the allegations so made with regard to the idling of labour, machineries, delays being false and baseless. This is also for the reason that the Claimant Respondent was doing another work across to the road of the Petitioner's brother and he was adjusting the work and machineries accordingly. Therefore, there was no question of idling machineries or workers. The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 8 arbp348.09.sxw ssm deposition to this effect also remained uncontroverted. There is also nothing on record to show that the Petitioner ordered or issued to stop or suspend the work and/or to not to utilize the labours or machineries for any other work and to mitigate the damages, if any.
10 Mere allegations made in the statement of claim to claim damages on the ground of delay, stoppage of work notice which caused idle labours and machineries, unless supported by proved documents, basically when there is a clear denial and if no evidence was laid by the Respondent, there is no question of granting any damages and/or claim so raised by the Respondent. Therefore, even assuming that there were three stoppages made during the period from August 2002 to March 2003 as alleged, the Respondents failed to prove the loss of profits and/or damages because of that. The fact remains that the steel worth of `27,16,587/- and Cement worth of `6,94,653/- were supplied from May 2002 to March 2003 and about 35555 sq. fts. of built up area was constructed during the period. The case of stoppage of work was also false and baseless. It is also falsified the case and submission of stoppage, delay and idling machinery and labour as contended.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 :::9 arbp348.09.sxw ssm 11 It is worth to note that the claimant has forfeited and has given up the part claim towards the alleged loss of profits, restructure rates, damages. The Arbitrator has also not awarded any amount by holding that there was no material in support of those claims including under utilization of tools and tackles and need to restructure rates during the alleged extended period, if any.
12 In every such matters, evidence is necessary to establish the loss and the fact that who committed the delay though in certain cases based upon established formulas, subject to certain conditions, the Arbitrator may award some compensation.
13 The Arbitrator has given clear finding that there is no evidence of stoppage of work. However, for the delay and disruption, finding is given that in a construction contract, specifically, when it was a lump sum contract with no provision for escalation, it is difficult to imagine that time was not fixed. The Arbitrator, however, recorded clear finding that a certain period was contemplated but not specified as expressly stated. As per agreement, work should be completed and delivered "within stipulated period of time as decided mutually." It was also provided that "if full work is not completed as per bar chart ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 10 arbp348.09.sxw ssm prepared mutually, penalty will be charged on the contract." After going through the report and considering the rival submissions, it is clear that there was no period fixed mutually by the parties. The bar chart prepared was unilaterally prepared and forwarded by the contractor. The acceptance of such bar chart cannot be treated as mutually agreed period of time. All the parties have all the details with them, including the difficulty in completing the project. The completion certificate was issued on 8 November 2004. The Arbitrator recorded finding that the work was completed on 30 June 2004. Therefore, finding is given that the total period of months comes to 25 months as against 11 months contemplated in the bar chart, though pleading shows that claim was for 5 months delay and not of 25 months as observed by the Arbitrator. Therefore, ultimately, it is observed by the Arbitrator that the additional period on account of delay and disruption is of 11 months.
14 The learned Arbitrator is wrong in observing that the claimants were not responsible for the delay. Though finding is also recorded that during the course of construction, the claimant had not categorically indicated from time to time how the delay occurred.
Ultimately, the Arbitrator has fixed responsibilities on both of them. It ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 11 arbp348.09.sxw ssm is further observed that neither the Respondents should have issued the work order, nor the claimants should have begun the work, knowing fully well that without the bank vacating the premises, the work was bound to be delayed and/or disrupted.
15 The learned Arbitrator is wrong in observing that in the construction contracts, it is not necessary that oral evidence should be led and many of the things are all matters of record. Admittedly, the claimant did not lead any oral evidence. The Respondent has examined one Mr. Vijay Chheda, the partner of the Respondent. The Arbitrator in the present case, is wrong in observing that if there is sufficient material on the basis of which the Arbitrator can reasonably ascertain the damages, he may quantify the same. It is well known that there are various formulas like Hudson formula or Emden formula for the purposes of computation of damages. The learned Arbitrator, in the present case, is wrong in observing that if there is enough material to make the existence of a fact probable, the Arbitrator can act upon it. He relied upon the formula as indicated by the claimant and awarded 15% of the actual rate of contract, on a foundation that in a lump sum contract, the overheads and profit element together would be about 15% of the actual rate of contract.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 :::12 arbp348.09.sxw ssm The Arbitrator based upon this held that 15% of the job comes to `3,27,300/- per month, and thereby, granted amount of `18,00,150/-
against the Petitioner on the foundation that for the delay and disruption, both the parties are responsible and would have to be borne by both the parties. The Arbitrator accordingly calculated half of the amount for the period of 11 months.
16 The Arbitrator has rejected all other claims like overhead loss, loss due under utilized tools and machineries, loss due to profit not earned and restructure rates during extended period, but granted on the same material and evidence on record, damages on account of overheads and profits.
17 The Arbitrator in my view needs to consider the pleadings of the parties, as well as, the terms of the contract. Such damages cannot be awarded on the basis of unagreed formula and/or clauses. There is nothing on record to show that parties have decided not to lead evidence in support of their claims or counter claims. Therefore, in absence of any specific agreement, the Arbitrator is also bound to follow the basic principle and law of Civil Procedure Code, as well as, the Evidence Act. The reasoning by holding both the parties ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 13 arbp348.09.sxw ssm responsible for delay, is impermissible. If both the parties are responsible for delay, as observed, then one party is estopped from raising and claiming any extra amount or claim because of escalation of price as observed in the case of M/s. Ambika Construction Co. v/s.
Union of India & Anr. 1 If both the parties based upon the facts and circumstances, without any objection, proceed to deal with the contract and act accordingly knowing fully the reasons for delay in completing the contract and as there was no specific agreed and/or mutually agreed fixed period for completion of the contract, in my view, there is no question of holding both the parties responsible for delay and latches and then award the amount on presumption and assumption, on account of over heads and profits as done in the present case. It is relevant to note that all the claimants went for the damages on account of delay and obstructions of various kinds. But having once rejected, more than 85% of claim for various types of damages, the grant of award in favour of Claimants on account of over heads and profits is apparently illegal as it is without any material and/or supporting evidence on record, specifically when no evidence was led in support of, and/or documents produced in support of monetary claim.
1 2011 Vol. 113 (6) Bom. L.R. 3487 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 14 arbp348.09.sxw ssm 18 I have already observed in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v/s. Oil Country Tubular Limited 2 and M/s. Ambika Construction Company (supra) as follows:-
"32 Considering Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act read with Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, burden is normally on the Plaintiff/claimant to prove the claims/losses which he has suffered, and is always relevant to grant damages. Therefore, if failed to discharge the burden/onus, for want of lack of pleadings and evidence, the Court may refuses to grant any damages to such party. Draupadi Devi and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 3 "48(g)In Saw Pipes (Supra), the Apex Court has observed that the party who relied upon such clause, may lead evidence to claim more, if the damage/compensation amount is not reasonable. The Court may also direct the parties to lead evidence to confirm that the action of delay amounts to breach of contract and which has caused the damages and therefore, entitled for a reasonable compensation/ amount. The reasonable amount/ compensation cannot be equated with the fixed amount and/or maximum amount as per the liquidated damages clause in question. The observations that other side to prove that the claimant has not suffer any loss or damage itself contemplates necessity of leading evidence by both the parties. The burden is always on the parties who claimed compensation to prove actual loss, even for the reasonable compensation. The other doctrines; "Mitigation of loss", "Burden of Proof", "Onus of proof" and "Shift of burden" just cannot be 2 2011(5) Bom. C.R. 198 3 (2004) 11 SCC 425 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 15 arbp348.09.sxw ssm overlooked by the Court or the Arbitrator, while determining the reasonable compensation."
19 It is relevant to note that the Arbitrator in a given case if pleaded and accepted any formula, to be the foundation for grant of award, then the Arbitrator subject to material available on record, may grant such compensation based upon the formula, but not otherwise, because it is necessary before awarding any damages, basically upon any such formula, that party should be made aware in advance by the Arbitrator that he is going to rely on such formula, so that appropriate pleading and/or submission can be made by the parties. Therefore, in absence of any such agreement, the Arbitrator cannot utilize any of the formulas available in the construction contract matters and pass such award without any evidence and/or basic material on record.
The Arbitrator is bound to follow the basic principles of law while granting damages, which is always subject to proof of loss and/or profit. In case of M/s. Essar Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Edifice Developers and Projects Engineers Limited, this court (D.K.Deshmukh J.) in Arbitration Petition No.313 of 2007 dated 11 th November, 2011 , relying upon the case of McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And Ors . 4 held that 4 2006(2) Arb.L.R. 498 (SC) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:33 ::: 16 arbp348.09.sxw ssm the award granting damages without any evidence, and mainly on the basis of unaccepted formula is impermissible. There are various such formulas available in the construction contract matters. There is nothing on record to show that the parties have agreed for particular formula to be the foundation of deciding their claims.
20 I have also observed in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s.
Kadbrotee Engineering Industries 5 by considering the Apex Court Judgment, that the award granting damages merely on the basis of the claim statement without any supporting material and evidence on record is invalid. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as under:-
13 In the judgment of Anindya Mukherjee Vs. Clean Coats Private Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 947 of 2009 dated 28/10/2010, this Court (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) has observed as under:-
"18 The Arbitrator needs to consider the basic laws while assessing and granting any kind of damages/ compensation. The Apex Court in the STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. VS. FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, (2009) 12 SCC 1, has observed in paragraph No.55 as under:-
5 2011(2) Mh.L.J. 659 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:34 ::: 17 arbp348.09.sxw ssm "55. While the quantum of evidence required to accept a claim may be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide, if there was no evidence at all and if the arbitrator makes an award of the amount claimed in the claim statement, merely on the basis of the claim statement without anything more, it has to be held that the award on that account would be invalid. Suffice it to say that the entire award under this head is wholly illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and wholly unsustainable."21
I have also observed in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (Supra) that in case of contract containing Liquidated Damages Clause, evidence of actual loss/damage is necessary. The burden to prove he same actually lies upon the Claimant. The quantum of damages cannot be awarded only on the basis of presumption and assumption and/or expectations. The doctrine of mitigation of loss, burden of proof, onus of proof and shift of burden, just cannot be overlooked by the Arbitrator while awarding the damages. In my view, all these basic elements are missing in the present case, while awarding the contract in favour of the Respondent.
The finding given by the Arbitrator, therefore, is contrary to the pleadings by overlooking the material issues and the relevant facts.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:34 :::18 arbp348.09.sxw ssm 22 Even the findings are contrary and inconsistent, apart from contrary to the terms of contract, as contemplated under Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act. There was no claim due to price escalation raised or made by the Claimant. Therefore, the award of damages ignoring the terms of contract also amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction and is unsustainable. (M/s. Kadbrotee Engineering Industries) (Supra).
23 In the present case, the grant of interest from 30 April 2005 till payment at the rate of 12% per month is also illegal. The Arbitrator by this award for the first time, granted the award of compensation/damages on account of overheads and profits.
Therefore, as there is no specific agreement, there is no question of grant of interest, prior to the date of this award, on the amount so claimed, basically it is `18,00,150/- (Claim No.2).
24 The Arbitrator has granted a sum of `4,56,136.80 paise (Claim No.1.) by holding that the amount was payable as against the bill dated 20 April 2004 and 8 October 2004. Though there is no denial to the fact that the claimant had received a sum of `5 Lacs, the claim was made by the Claimant that, that amount was towards the part ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:34 ::: 19 arbp348.09.sxw ssm payment of another bill, but there is no material placed on record to justify the bill, as well as, the reason for such part payment. There is no supporting evidence led by the claimant to show that payment was towards the bill, which remained unpaid. The Petitioner-Respondent's case, therefore, stands justified that `5 Lacs which was paid covers the bill dated 8 October 2004 also. The learned Arbitrator, however, did not accept the Claimant's case, which according to me is wrong to hold that why `5 Lacs was paid though the amount was `4,56,136.80 paise. `5 Lacs was paid on 3 November 2004, Six months after accepting the payment of the final bill, the claim was raised by the letter dated 30 April 2005 and demanded compensation for alleged delay. The final bill was accepted without any demure or protest. I have already observed in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) that the principle of accord and satisfaction on receipt of amount in full and final settlement of claim is well established. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, having once accepted the full and final payment without any protest and unable to establish with supporting documents by placing the bill on record, I am inclined to observe that the amount was not due and payable as claimed.
25 Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, I am inclined to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:34 ::: 20 arbp348.09.sxw ssm pass the following order :-
ORDER
a) The impugned award dated 16 January 2009 passed by the Sole Arbitrator is quashed and set aside.
b) The Petition is accordingly allowed.
c) There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:34 :::