JSC CENTRODOSTROY Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). The matter came up for the first time on 30.08.2013 when, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, was heard in support of the petition. Since Ms. Padma Priya, who represents M/s. M.V. Kini & Company, the concern on the panel of the respondent, was present in court, Mr. Sandeep Sharma was asked to supply a copy of the petition to her. Ms. Padma Priya was asked to assist the court to obtain the respondent's response in the matter. The matter was posted for hearing on 02.09.2013. On the said date a request for passover was made. Since it was not possible to passover the matter on the said date, the matter was stood over till today, i.e., 05.09.2013. The date was given with the consent of counsels for the parties.

(2.) Today, Mr. Vatsal Kumar, Advocate, appears in court on behalf of the petitioner and seeks accommodation on the ground that Mr. Sandeep Sharma is away on professional work to another city. The request is declined as the date was fixed with the consent of counsels for the parties. In any event, as indicated in the opening, Mr. Sandeep Sharma was heard on 30.08.2013.

(3.) The short issue which is raised, in the present petition to assail the award dated 01.06.2013 is: whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation towards overheads and loss of profit in respect of items qua which either quantities were reduced or completely omitted from the work contract. Hereinafter collectively referred to as variations.