THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1376 AND1405 OF 2002 BETWEEN: V.Kodandarama Reddy … Appellant AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd, And another. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1376 AND1405 OF 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These two appeals under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act, for brevity) is against common order dated 29.06.2001 passed by Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in O.P.Nos.146 of 1989 and 168 of 1990. Both the appeals filed by contractor (hereafter called, the appellant/contractor) are against Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter called, RTC). During pendency of proceedings, the contractor died and his legal representatives came on record as per order dated 7.9.2007 in C.M.A.M.P.No.1201 of 2007 in C.M.A.No.1405 of 2002. The disputes that arose in the matter of construction of bus station complex were referred to arbitrator. Arbitrator passed award. Contractor filed O.P.No.168 of 1990 for making the award rule of the Court with interest at 15% per annum from the date of reference till the date of decree and 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. RTC filed O.P.No.146 of 1989 under Section 30 of the Act to set aside the award. The learned senior civil Judge partly allowed both the O.Ps., only to the extent of confirming the arbitral award regarding payment of interest on the security deposit. RTC invited tenders for construction of bus station complex at Tirumala. The contractor’s bid for Rs.49,00,000/- (Rupees forty nine lakhs only) was accepted and after negotiations, the value of work was reduced to Rs.42,00,000/- (Rupees forty two lakhs only). EMD of Rs.40,500/- and security deposit of Rs.27,000/- were given by contractor. On 26.02.1981 contractor signed the stamp papers supplied by Corporation and submitted the same. A day thereafter, the Chief Civil Engineer informed acceptance of tender and the original contact period of 20 months was reduced to 12 months for which contractor gave programme. As the offer was accepted, contractor allegedly mobilized men, material and machinery to the site. The site was not handed over and 7 months after acceptance of contract, a communication dated 25.09.1981, General Manager of RTC informed that the order of acceptance was cancelled on the ground that they were not in a position to take up the work at Tirumala. Contractor made a representation on 24.11.1981 requesting permission to commence the work, in vain. Without prejudice to his rights, contractor accepted refund of EMD and security deposit and filed O.P.No.165 of 1985 for appointment of arbitrator. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge by order 21.02.1986 appointed sole arbitrator, who entered reference on 21.04.1987. In his claim statement, the contractor raised four claims namely, (i) an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- towards loss suffered on engaging 100 salem labour, advances paid, transportation charges and for erecting sheds for workers, (ii) an amount of Rs.46,000/- paid as advance to owners of lorries, for centring materials and establishment; (iii) an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- towards loss of profit at 12.5% per annum of the contract amount for breach of contract; and (iv) interest at 20% per annum from 01.11.1980 to 28.01.1982 and from 010.3.1981 to 28.01.1982 on EMD/security deposit, and an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- towards interest on claim Nos.1 and 2 at 20% per annum from 01.06.1981 to 28.09.1987. RTC opposed the claim inter alia on the ground that there was no valid agreement between parties and that all the claims are not sustainable. Initially, on 13.10.1988 arbitral tribunal passed award allowing an amount of Rs.65,000/- under claim No.1, an amount of Rs.21,000/- under claim No.2, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under claim No.3 and an amount of Rs.88,930/- under claim No.4. RTC filed O.P.No.146 of 1989 seeking to set aside the award. As the arbitral tribunal passed award without reasons, the civil Court remitted the matter to the arbitrator and with a request to furnish reasons under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The arbitral tribunal later furnished reasons. Thereafter, the Court below considered the matter and set aside the award insofar as claim Nos.1 to 3 are concerned. The Court below set aside claim No.1 on ground that the reasons assigned are not satisfactory and that as per clause 58 of A.P.M.D.S.S (APDSS) contractor is not entitled for any such amount, set aside claim No.2 on the ground that the question of paying advance to lorry owners does not arise and set aside claim No.3 on the ground that the reasoning of arbitrator is not sound. Claim No.4, interest on EMD and security deposit, was allowed to the extent of Rs.7,930/- while denying interest awarded on claim Nos.1 and 2. In these appeals, counsel for contractor submits that the arbitral award for claim Nos.1 and 2 is supported by documentary evidence. When the award is made on considering such evidence, interference by civil Court on the ground of sufficiency of reasons is erroneous especially when arbitral tribunal as well as civil Court found that there was a concluded contract between parties and the same was unilaterally cancelled in breach. Nextly, he contends that in respect of claim No.4 which pertains to award of interest on security deposit and Earnest Money Deposit as well as the amount under claim Nos.1 and 2, if the contractor succeeds on claim Nos.1 and 2, interest has to be paid on the claimed amount. Insofar as claim No.3 which deals with loss of profit is concerned, the submission is that when there is a breach of contract, the other party is entitled to claim compensation towards loss of profit, which would have accrued to him under the contract. He placed reliance on various decisions to which reference is made subsequently. The counsel for RTC submits that there was no concluded contract between parties, that there was no proof of damages suffered by contractor, that award of compensation towards loss of profit is illegal and that the security deposit and EMD do not carry any interest as per the terms of contract. He also relies on clause 58 of Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Specifications (APDSS) in support of the submission that the expenditure incurred by contactor before commencement of contract cannot be validly claimed. Before arbitral tribunal as well as civil Court, RTC mainly rest their objections on the ground that there was no concluded contract. On interpreting the circumstances, commencing from calling tenders by RTC till the cancellation of contract and thereafter, the arbitral tribunal as well as Court below have found that there is a concluded contract between the parties. In the impugned order, a reference has been made to R.Venkat Reddy v Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation[1] to support the conclusion that the tender submitted by contractor was accepted, that contractor signed the agreement on stamp paper and thereafter he was asked to give construction programme for 12 months. Interpreting these documents, a conclusion was arrived at by Court below that there was a concluded contract. This finding is unassailable because as per Section 4 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 the acceptance of proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made and communication of acceptance is complete as against the proposer when it is put in the course of transmission to him and as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. In this case, contractor submitted tender on 30.10.1980 undertaking to construct bus station complex for Rs.49,00,000/- which was reduced to Rs.42,00,000. Thereafter, he complied with the requirement of furnishing security deposit and also signed the contract on stamped papers. In response to which, Chief Civil Engineer on 27.02.1981 informed the acceptance of contract. Therefore signing of agreement submitted by contractor on 26.02.1981 by authorized signatory of RTC is immaterial. Proposal was invited, proposal was made and the same was accepted without any demur. Therefore, the plea of counsel for RTC cannot be accepted. As noticed supra, claim Nos.1 and 2 would certainly relate to the amounts incurred by contractor for procuring labour, men, materials and towards advances paid to lorry owners and centring material. Even according to contactor, after he received communication accepting the contract on 27.02.1981 he paid these advances to labour as well as lorry owners. Whether he is entitled to claim such amounts? Clause 58 (indisputably similar to APDSS) reads as under. 58. Date of commencement and completion: On notification of possession of the site (premises) being given to the contractor by letter registered for acknowledgement as provided in paragraph 10 supra, he shall forthwith begin the work, shall regularly and continuously proceed with them, and shall complete the same (except for painting or other work which, in the opinion of the Executive Engineer, it may be desirable to delay) by the date of completion as defined in “Articles of Agreement”, subject, nevertheless, to the provisions of extension of time mentioned in the next clause. The contractor shall under no circumstances be entitled to claim any damages from Government if he incurs any expenses or liabilities to payment under the contract before the date of commencement defined above. The contractor shall have the right to withdraw from the contract and obtain refund of his security deposit is such intimation of handing over the site is delayed more than two months from the date of acceptance of the agreement by competent authority. A plain reading of above preliminary specification, which forms part of contract, would show that the contractor shall not be entitled to claim any damages if he incurs any expenses or liabilities to payment under the contract before the date of commencement of the contract work. It is nobody’s case that the contactor commenced the construction of bus station complex and mid way RTC cancelled the contract. Even before the work could commence, RTC decided not to go ahead with the work and on 25.09.1981 General Manager informed the contractor that they are not in a position to proceed with the work. Therefore, the two aspects whether the arbitral tribunal recorded reasons and whether such reasons are sound and satisfactory strictly do not arise. Even assuming that the reasons of arbitral tribunal are satisfactory or sound still it makes no difference. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by counsel for contractor, the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons and the rationality of the reasons, cannot be gone into by civil Court. Indeed, as reiterated by Supreme Court in G.Ramachandra Reddy v Union of India[2], the interpretation of the contract and appreciation of evidence are exclusively in the realm of arbitral tribunal and an award containing reasons cannot be interfered with unless the findings recorded are found to be perverse or based on a wrong proposition of law. Even if two views are possible, confirming/reviewing Court cannot interfere with the award. Therefore, we hold that clause 58 of APDSS bars the contractor from claiming pre- commencement expenditure whatever it may be, and to that extent, though for different reasons, we are inclined to confirm the order of the Court below setting aside the award. In this connection, we may refer to Ch.Ramalinga Reddy v Superintending Engineer[3], wherein it has been conclusively held that when the contract plainly barred the contractor from making any claim, it was impermissible for arbitral tribunal to make an award in respect thereof. In such event, the Court is entitled to intervene and set aside the award. Next aspect of the matter is award of certain amount towards loss of profit. Indisputably, RTC cancelled the contract and therefore, the claim towards loss of profit is a valid claim. The law in this regard is well settled and we may refer to some of the decisions cited across the bar. In Hudson’s treatise on ‘Building and Engineering Contracts’ (tenth edn., by I.N.Duncan Wallace, 1970), it is pointed out that in completing contracts, a percent of profit varies from contractor to contractor and in Great Britain, as per the evidence given in litigation it ranges between 3% to 7% of the total prime cost of the project. In Mohd.Salamatullah v Government of Andhra Pradesh[4], Supreme Court indicated that award amount of 15% towards loss of profit or towards quantum of damages would be justified. In M/s.A.T.Brij Paul Singh v State of Gujarat[5], Supreme Court while upholding the principle that the contractor would be entitled to claim damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract, observed as under. It was not disputed before us that where in a works contract, the party entrusting the work commits breach of the contract, the contractor would be entitled to claim damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract. What must be the measure of profit and what proof should be tendered to sustain the claim are different matters. But the claim under this head is certainly admissible. … What would be the measure of profit would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. But that there shall be a reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract and its loss has to be compensated by way of damages if the other party to the contract is guilty of breach of contract cannot be gainsaid. In this case we have the additional reason for rejecting the contention that for the same type of work, the work site being in the vicinity of each other and for identical type of work between the same parties, a Division Bench of the same High Court has accepted 15% of the value of the balance of the works contract would not be an unreasonable measure of damages for loss of profit. We are therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was in error in wholly rejecting the claim under this head. In Dwaraka Das v State of Madhya Pradesh[6], the work for the construction of hostel for hundred boys at Polytechnic Ujjain was entrusted to the appellant therein. The work was to be completed within twenty-nine months. Allegedly due to the reason that Superintending Engineer obstructed the progress of the work, the work could not be completed and the contract between the parties was rescinded. The appellant contended that termination of the contract was in breach thereof and claimed damages for breach of contract besides other amounts. The suit was decreed with 6% interest per annum. The High Court partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, the contractor filed appeal. Before Supreme Court, one of the questions was whether the claim on account of damages as expected profit out of contract was illegal? Referring to Mohd.Salamatullah (supra) and Brij Paul Singh (supra), Supreme Court allowed the appeal observing as under. This Court in A.T.Brij Pal Singh v State of Gujarat ((1984) 4 SCC 59) while interpreting the provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act, has held that damages can be claimed by a contractor where the government is proved to have committed breach by improperly rescinding the contract and for estimating the amount of damages court should make a broad evaluation instead of going into minute details. It was specifically held that where in the works contract, the party entrusting the work committed breach of contract, the contractor is entitled to claim the damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract. Claim of expected profits is legally admissible on proof of the breach of contract by the erring party. ….. To the same effect is the judgment in Mohd. Salamatullah v Government of Andhra Pradesh ((1977) 3 SCC 590 : AIR 1977 SC 1481). After approving the grant of damages in case of breach of contract, the court further held that the appellate court was not justified to interfere with finding of fact given by the trial court regarding quantification of the damages even if it was based upon guess work. In both the cases referred to hereinabove. 15% of the contract price was granted as damages to the contractor. A Division Bench of this Court in Superintending Engineer v P.Radhakrishna Murthy[7], while following Brij Paul Singh (supra) held that compensation in the form of loss of profit could be legitimately awarded if as a result of breach of contractual obligations, the other party is disabled from carrying out the work fully and the damages on account of loss of profit cannot be considered to be too remote. Thus, the principle is well settled that when there is breach of works contract by employer, the contractor can claim loss of profit. Counsel for RTC relies on Marimuthu Gounder v Ramaswamy Gounder[8] and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v L.K.Ahuja[9], to contend that in the absence of any proof as to actual damage, contractor is not entitled to loss of profit. In Marimuthu Gounder (supra), plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with defendant and alleging that there was a breach of contract, he filed suit for recovery of Rs.10,000/- with interest from the date of payment. The suit was opposed inter alia on the ground that there was no breach and that the plaintiff can file a suit for specific performance, and that amount can be forfeited. The suit was dismissed by Subordinate Judge. Learned single Judge of High Court decreed the suit for return of the money. Aggrieved by the same, defendant went in Letters Patent Appeal. It was urged that the amount was in the nature of Earnest Money and therefore in the absence of proof of damage, it is not returnable to the plaintiff. The plea was not accepted by Division Bench and LPA was dismissed. The question whether contractor can claim loss of profit did not arise though the learned single Judge observed that in the absence of any proof of damage suffered by defendants, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the money, which was accepted by Division Bench. In Bharat Coking Coal (supra), the contractor under claim No.9 sought an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss arising out of turnover due to prolongation of work. The arbitrator passed award for Rs.6,000/- for the same being 15% of the total profit. While deleting the same from the award, Supreme Court observed as under. Here when claim for escalation of wages bills and price for materials compensation has been paid and compensation for delay in the payment of the amount payable under the contract or for other extra works is to be paid with interest thereon, it is rather difficult for us to accept the proposition that in addition 15% of the total profit should be computed under the heading 'Loss of Profit'. It is not unusual for the contractors to claim loss of profit arising out of diminution in turn over on account of delay in the matter of completion of the work. What he should establish in such a situation is that had he received the amount due under the contract, he could have utilised the same for some other business in which he could have earned profit. Unless such a plea is raised and established, claim for loss of profits could not have been granted. As seen from the facts of the case, the work assigned to contractor was completed and 15% was claimed as a loss due to prolongation of work. As the case of the contractor was very specific, he incurred loss due to prolongation of work, proof was insisted upon. But as held by Supreme Court in other cases referred to hereinabove, when there is a breach of contract, in that contract was terminated by employer, a claim for damages towards loss of profit is a valid claim. In the case on hand, the arbitrator awarded 12.5% towards loss of profit, which appears to be reasonable. Any contract work would certainly fetch profit anywhere between 3% to 7% as observed by Hudson and as in Mohd.Salamatullah (supra) and Brij Paul Singh (supra), Supreme Court accepted loss of profit at 15%. Therefore, the award of 12.5% of the value of the work by the arbitral tribunal is reasonable and justified because RTC cancelled the contract even without notice to the contractor. To that extent, contractor must succeed. The last issue is regarding interest. As we agreed with the Court below insofar as claim Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the question of payment of interest on the said amount would not arise. Insofar as claim No.4, interest on EMD and security deposit, is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the arbitral tribunal as well nor counsel for RTC is able to persuade us on this. In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the order of Court below insofar as claim No.3 is concerned, duly confirming the award of arbitrator regarding loss of profit. We confirm the impugned order insofar as claim Nos.1, 2 and 4 are concerned. Both the appeals filed by contractor are partly allowed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) .12.2009 pln [1] 2000 (2) An.W.R. 61 [2] AIR 2009 SC 2629 [3] (1999) 9 SCC 610 [4] AIR 1977 SC 1481 [5] (1984) 4 SCC 59 : AIR 1984 SC 1703 [6] (1999) 3 SCC 500 [7] 1996 (3) ALT 1137 (DB) [8] AIR 1979 Madras 189 [9] (2004) 5 SCC 109