1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 172 OF 2009 Union of India Through- The Chief Engineer ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Shri V. Narsimhan ...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 19th November, 2009. P.C.- 1 None present for the Respondent, 2 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 31st December, 2007, whereby, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded the claims in favour of the Respondent in spite of the specific clauses 17 (1),(2) and (3) in the Standard General Condition of Contracts. Besides, there is letter dated 30/03/1999, whereby, the Petitioner while extending the period of completion of the work is specifically provided that the contractor/ respondent shall not entitle to claim whatsoever, by virtue of extension nor the petitioner will entertain to consider such claim, if made. 2 3 In spite of this, the Arbitrators have awarded claim No.4, Claim No.5, Claim No.6 and Claim No.7 on the ground of delay and extension by overlooking those above clauses, as well as, communication in writing. The parties are bound by the agreement and the respective clauses. Having once accepted those clauses, as well as, the letter of extension as referred above, in my view, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to grant any claim based upon the same, i.e. the ground of delay. Such award, in my view, is contrary to the contract terms and the material on record. It is illegal and unsustainable. 4 The Division Bench in Appeal No. 36 of 1999 in M/s. K. J. Construction Co. Vs. Union of India, by Judgment dated 12th March, 2003, while maintaining such order passed by the Single Judge, has observed in paragraph No.9 as under:- "9. Perusal of clause 17(1) of the contract shows that it deals with the grant of extension of time for the completion of work under the contract in certain contingency. Perusal of clause 17(2) shows that it also deals with the grant of extension of time to complete the work in certain contingency. Perusal of clause 17(3) shows that it deals with the situation where there is delay in completion of work for any reason and time to complete the work is extended then what is to happen in relation to the payment of damages or compensation. It clearly lays down that if for any reason completion of work is delay, the contractor would not be entitled to any damages or compensation because of the delay. It further says in clear terms that even if the time is granted then also the contractor is not entitled to claim damages. Thus the subject covered by clause 17(3) is entitlement or dis-entitlement of the contractor to claim damages due to delay in completion of work. Clause 17(1) and 17(2) deal with a situation in which extension of 3 time to complete the work can be given and clause 17(3) lays down that in case there is delay in completion of the work and extension of time is granted even then the contractor is not entitled to claim damages. It is, therefore, clear that in so far as claim No.7 is concerned it is clause 17(3) of the contract which is material and it is that clause which has been taken into consideration by the learned single Judge. Clause 17(1) and 17(2) were not at all relevant because admittedly extension of time has been granted. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in so far as claim No. 7 is concerned.” and thereby, refused to entertain the case of the Respondent and that resulted into dismissal of the claim in favour of the Respondent on the ground of delay, as done in the present case. 5 There is no counter claim and or challenge made by the Respondent to the award. 6 Resultantly, the Petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 31st December, 2007, is quashed and set aside. 7 No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)