Delhi High Court - Orders
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited vs Ranjit Singh And Company Llp on 27 April, 2023
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 134/2023
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apoorv P. Tripathi, Ms. Anjali
Kaushik and Mr. Devesh Mohan,
Advocates
versus
RANJIT SINGH AND COMPANY LLP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Mr. Vijayan
K., Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 27.04.2023 I.A. 6825/2023 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CAV 189/2023The respondent has entered appearance.
Accordingly, the caveat stands discharged.
O.M.P. (COMM) 134/2023 & I.A. 6824/2023 (Stay)
1. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "The Act, 1996") has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Set aside the award dated 08.11.2022 and the order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 13:24:38 08.12.2022 to the extent it awards an amount of Rs.
2,42,17,988/- along with interest to the Respondent as invalid and bad in law;
(b) Adjourn the present proceedings and remand the matter back to the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for considering the arguments raised in Ground M-UU of the present petition;
(c) Award costs of this Petition to the Petitioner;
(d)Pass any order/orders as the court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present Petition."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the present petition is filed for setting aside the arbitral award dated 8th November, 2022 ('Impugned Award') and certain observations contained in an order dated 8th December, 2022, passed under Section 33 of the Act, 1996, by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal, in arbitration proceedings between M/s Ranjit Singh and Co. and Power Grid Corporation of India, arising out of a contract dated 27th July, 2009, entered into between the petitioner and claimant for construction of a transmission line from Dehradun-Baghpat. It is submitted that the scheduled date of the completion of the contract was July 2011, but the project was completed in 2017. The claims raised by the claimant were on account of overhead costs incurred by it due to extension of time, price variation and delay by petitioner in releasing certain monies under RA bill no. 30. It is further submitted that by the impugned award, claims No. 2 and 3 were rejected and claim No. 1 was allowed for an amount of Rs. 2,42,17,988/- along with simple interest @6% per annum; and if the said amount is not paid within four (4) weeks, it will Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 13:24:38 attract penal interest @ 9% per annum. The present petition is not being filed with respect to the rejection of claims No. 2 and 3. It is only filed with respect to the partial award of claim No. 1 and the non-consideration of certain arguments raised by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that despite recording a categorical finding that the Hudson formula will not apply and that the claimant has not furnished any material or evidence to establish the additional expenditure incurred by it during the extended period, the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the claimant is entitled to claim No. 1 for overheads on an "estimate basis", keeping in mind the doctrine of equity, justice and good conscience and has accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 2,42,17,988/- in favour of the claimant. It is submitted that this is contrary to the settled law of damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. In order for a party to be entitled to claim damages, it must prove the loss caused to it through cogent documents and evidence. Once the Arbitral Tribunal has come to a conclusion that such documents have not been filed by the claimant and that, this is not a fit case for the petition of Hudson formula, then there is no basis whatsoever for awarding any amounts as damages to the claimant, let alone an amount of Rs. 2,42,17,988/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that in addition, the direction contained in paragraph 43 of the award that the petitioner is required to make the payment of Rs. 2,42,17,988/- to the claimant alongwith simple interest @ 6% within 4 weeks and thereafter there will be a penal interest of 9%, is contrary to the settled law that only one rate of interest is to apply and there cannot be a different/ higher/ penal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 13:24:38 rate of interest just because of delay in paying within the stipulated time period. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also failed to consider the issues raised by the petitioner in its statement of defence, evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions, each of which is necessary to be adjudicated for a full and final determination of the controversy between the parties.
5. Heard.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ajit Pudussery, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
8. List on 25th May, 2023.
9. Learned counsel for the parties are also directed to file written submissions alongwith convenience compilation before the next date of hearing.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J APRIL 27, 2023 Dy/@k Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 13:24:38