Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to various paragraphs of the statement of claim showing the nature of the claim made by the respondent towards loss of profit and also the defence raised by the petitioner in the written statement filed before the arbitral tribunal. He submits that though the onus was on the respondent to prove that the respondent had suffered any loss of profit due to the alleged breaches committed by the petitioner and though the respondent has not led any evidence to prove the claim of loss of profit, the arbitral tribunal had allowed the claim for loss of profit without any evidence ppn 15 arbp-470.12(j).doc by simplicitor applying the Hudson formula. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of McDermott International INC. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181 and in particular paragraphs 102 to 110 thereof. He also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered on 3rd January 2013 in Appeal No.11 of 2012 in the case of Edifice Developers and Project Engineers Ltd. Vs. M/s.Essar Projects (India) Ltd. and more particularly paragraphs 4 to 11 thereof.

39. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a similar submission also in respect of the claim for overheads awarded by the arbitral tribunal in favour of the respondent which was advanced by the learned counsel in respect of the claim for loss of profit. He submits that various findings recorded by the arbitral tribunal on the issue of claim of loss of overheads is also totally perverse and based on no evidence. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court on interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of McDermott International INC. (supra) has held that Hudson formula could not have been applied simplicitor and if no oral evidence is led by the parties, no claim for loss of profit or overheads is made before the arbitral tribunal.

46. In so far as the claim for damages awarded by the arbitral tribunal is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is within the domain of the arbitral tribunal to apply any of the formulas such as the Hudson Formula, Emden Formula and Eichelay Formula which were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of McDermott International INC. (supra). He submits that the respondent had led documentary evidence before the arbitral tribunal showing the losses suffered by the respondent during the period of suspension of the work. He submits that the respondent had in addition to that, claimed loss of profit and overheads based on Hudson formula which is universally accepted by the Courts in India.

102. Learned counsel for both the parties have heavily placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of McDermott International INC. (supra). A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of McDermott International INC. (supra) indicates that in that matter, the contractor had examined a witnesses to prove the claim ppn 47 arbp-470.12(j).doc for compensation who had calculated the increased overhead and loss of profit on the basis of the formula laid down in a manual published by the Mechanical Contractors Association of America entitled "Change Orders, Overtime, Productivity" commonly known as the Emden Formula. The said witness had brought out the additional project management cost at US$ 1,109,500. The Supreme Court adverted to an earlier judgment in case of M.N.Gangappa vs. Atmakur Nagabhushanam Shetty & Ors., (1973) 3 SCC 406 in which it was held that the method used for computation of damages will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Supreme Court also noticed different formulas such as Hudson Formula, Emden Formula and Eichleay Formula in the said judgment.