Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

                                       over the full site and drawings                      Consequently,
                                       in time.                                             the Respondent
                                                                                            was directed to
                                                                                            compensate the
                                                                                            Claimant for the
                                                                                            established
                                                                                            losses        and
                                                                                            awarded        the
                                                                                            claimed sum of
                                                                                            Rs. 9,21,196/-.

                 Claim 3 Losses due    Though the contract period As per the agreement The Tribunal held
                         to            was six months, due to delays and             General that             the
                         infructuous   and     breaches    by     the Conditions           of Claimant, due to
                         overheads     Respondent, the Claimant had Contract, there is no the Respondent's
                                       to remain mobilised at site till provision         for breaches,      was
                                       October–November 2007 with compensating                required          to
                                       staff and equipment, leading infructuous               remain on site
                                       to infructuous expenditure. overheads.        Further, with             its

8.Keeping the above in mind, this Court will now go into the various grounds taken against the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

9.The submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners mainly focused on the award granted under the heads of loss of profit due to foreclosure of work, losses due to flood damages, losses due to infructuous overhead and losses due to extended use of machinery, equipment, materials and infrastructure.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:19 pm )

22.The next issue pertains to losses due to infructuous overheads. As stated supra the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, there was no reason for Claimant to overstay up to June 2007 and therefore the Claimant is not entitled for any compensation under this head. The Sole Arbitrator had taken into consideration the period between the Letter of Foreclosure till December 2006 and the Sole Arbitrator considered the works that were entrusted to the Claimant post foreclosure. This is a factual finding which cannot be interfered by this court. This Court also rejects the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as if the findings in paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 are contradicting each other. There is no contradiction in those findings since what the Sole Arbitrator has inferred in these two paragraphs pertains to a hindrance free site.

27.It was attempted to be argued that such compensation claimed by the Claimant is virtually duplication of the claim that was already made under the head loss of infructuous overhead. This ground is not sustainable since it is an independent claim made by the Respondent and the Arbitrator had taken into consideration the additional hire charges paid by the Respondent and even though the Railways claim that they had given Letter of Acceptance to another contractor, that does not take away the eligibility of Respondent to claim losses under this head which has been substantiated through documents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 07:27:19 pm )