LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-65

NHPC LIMITED Vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. AND ORS.

Decided On September 10, 2015
Nhpc Limited Appellant
V/S
Patel Engineering Ltd. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed an appeal by invoking the jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') by impugning the judgment rendered by Additional District Judge, Faridabad dated 4.7.2013, whereby, the objection filed under Section 34 of the Act, has been dismissed.

(2.) MR . Mr. Ajit Pudussery, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that a contract dated 21.11.2003 for construction of Lot (TL -1) including Diversion Works, Barrage and Spillways, In -take, Pen Stocks, Surface Power House, Tail Channel, Pot Head Yard and associated civil works of the 132 MW (4 x 33 MW) Teesta Low Dam Hydroelectric Project, State -III, in the State of West Bengal, India was entered between the appellant and respondent No. 1 -contractor. Total value of the work was Rs. 2,28,16,00,000/ - + US $ 23,00,00/ - and the said contract was to be completed within 45 months from the date of letter of award i.e. 28.10.2003, Clause 20 of the General Condition of the contract hereinafter called (GCC) envisaged that the contract shall commence a work within 30 days from the date of issue of letter of award, whereas, clause 22 of GCC provided the completion of work within the aforementioned period. He further submits that forest clearance was issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest for diversion of land on 9.6.2003 without any stipulation regarding the payment of Net Present Value (NPV) for the forest land which was the concept then, developed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. A dispute arose between the department and the contractor and as a result thereof, the matter was referred to the arbitrator.

(3.) HE further submits that the contractor was also prohibited to claim indirect loss/damages. The arbitrator, in not relying upon aforesaid clause by the department held that the contractor was entitled to compensation by applying Hudson's formula on account of overhead charges amounting to Rs. 4,76,00,000/ - along with interest @ of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of award. Besides this, the arbitrator had also exceeded, in jurisdiction in awarding the aforementioned claim.