Case: M/S. MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) COMPANY Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

present case, the parties themselves have agreed that the decision of the Superintending Engineer in levying compensation is final and the same is an excepted matter and the determination shall be only by the Superintending Engineer and the correctness of his decision cannot be called in question in the arbitration proceedings and the remedy if any, will arise in the ordinary course of law. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v. Motorola India (P) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 337 and by referring to Clause 16(2) in the concerned agreement submitted that for quantification of liquidated damages, first of all, there has to be a delay and for ascertaining as to who was responsible for the delay, such an issue will be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The learned ASG however, submitted that in the present case, Clause 2 of the agreement is not only a mechanism for quantification of liquidated damages, but Clause 2 also makes the contractor liable for payment of the same and in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement, the decision of the Superintending Engineer is final and the present case is therefore, distinguishable from BSNLs case. 23. As rightly contended by the learned ASG, in BSNLs case, Clause 16(2) of the agreement does not create any kind of liability to pay liquidated damages; but only provides for entitlement of BSNL to collect the damages in case of any delay in supply on the part of the supplier under Clause 16(2). While interpreting Clause 16(2) and Clause 21 of the contract which was under consideration in BSNLs case, in paras (23) and (26), the Supreme Court held as under:- 23. The question to be decided in this case is whether the liability of the respondent to pay liquidated damages and the entitlement of the appellants, to collect the same from the respondent is an excepted matter for the purpose of Clause 20.1 of the general conditions of contract. The High Court has pointed out correctly that the authority of the purchaser (BSNL) to quantify the liquidated damages payable by the supplier Motorola arises once it is found that the supplier is liable to pay the damages claimed. The decision contemplated under Clause 16.2 of the agreement is the decision regarding the quantification of the liquidated damages and not any decision regarding the fixing of the liability of the supplier. It is necessary as a condition precedent to find that there has been a delay on the part of the supplier in discharging his obligation for delivery under the agreement. ……….. 26. Quantification of liquidated damages may be an excepted matter as argued by the appellants, under Clause 16.2, but for the levy of liquidated damages, there has to be a delay in the first place. In the present case, there is a clear dispute as to the fact that whether there was any delay on the part of the respondent. For this reason, it cannot be accepted that the appointment of the arbitrator by the High Court was unwarranted in this case. Even if the quantification was excepted as argued by the appellants under Clause 16.2, this will only have effect when the dispute as to the delay is ascertained. Clause 16.2 cannot be treated as an excepted matter because of the fact that it does not provide for any adjudicatory process for decision on a question, dispute or difference, which is the condition precedent to lead to the stage of quantification of damages. 24. In BSNLs case, Clause 16 provided for entitlement of the party to recover liquidated damages. In Clause 16(2), the phrases used value of delayed quantity and for each week of delay clearly show that it is necessary to find out whether there has been delay on the part of the supplier in discharging his obligation. Thus, in BSNLs case, in determining whether there is delay or not, a process of adjudication is envisaged. Per contra, in the present case, Clause 2 of the agreement is a complete mechanism for determination of liability. The right to levy damages for delay is exclusively conferred upon the Superintending Engineer and Clause 2 of the present agreement is a complete mechanism for determination of liability and when such compensation is levied by the Superintending Engineer, the same is final and binding. The parties have also consciously agreed that for the delay caused, the Superintending Engineer shall levy the compensation of the amount equal to half per cent and the said amount shall not exceed from 10% of the cost of the work and the determination by the Superintending Engineer is final and cannot be the subject matter of arbitration. In claim No.6, the prayer sought for by the contractor to declare the compensation levied by the Superintending Engineer as illegal is contradictory to the agreed terms between the parties. So far as the liquidated damages determined and levied, by virtue of Clause 2, is out of the purview of the arbitration especially in view of the fact that under the very same clause, the parties have agreed that the decision of the Superintending Engineer shall be final. 25. Learned Single Judge erred in proceeding under the presumptive footing that the compensation levied by the Superintending Engineer was in the nature of penalty. It was actually levy of liquidated damages/compensation in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement. Levy of compensation of Rs.32,79,828/- in Arbitration Case No.297A of 2002 and Rs.42,08,940/- in Arbitration Case No.297 of 2002 in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement is final and the same could not have been the subject matter of arbitration. Applying the ratio of Vishwanath Sood, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the order of the learned Arbitrator with regard to claim No.6 by holding that levy of liquidated damages/compensation is adjustable against the final bill payable to the appellant. The impugned judgment does not therefore, suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. The learned Single Judge, in our view, failed to note the implication of Clause 2 of the contract and also various correspondences between the parties, while affirming the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. In terms of Clause 2 of the agreement dated 05.02.1996 between the parties, the contractor is to proceed with the work with due diligence throughout the contract period. In case of delay or failure to ensure good progress during execution of the work, Clause 2 of the agreement provides for determination/quantification of compensation for delay or certain inactions, on the part of the contractor. In terms of Clause 2 of the agreement, the Superintending Engineer shall assess and quantify the compensation. By the terms of the agreement, the parties have consciously agreed that in case the contractor fails to comply with the conditions and complete the work with due diligence, the Superintending Engineer may decide the compensation in terms of Clause 2 of the agreementA reading of Clause 2 makes it clear that the Superintending Engineer has been conferred with not only a right to levy compensation; but it also provides a mechanism for determination of the liability/quantum of compensation. The very Clause 2 itself would show that such a decision taken by the Superintending Engineer shall be final. The finality clause in the contract in terms of Clause 2 makes the intention of the parties very clear that there cannot be any further dispute on the said issue between the parties; much less before the arbitratorThe intention of the parties to exclude some of the decisions of the Superintending Engineer from the purview of arbitration is clearly seen from the abovesaid clause. Claim No.6 made by the appellant is to declare that the penalty imposed by ONGC under Clause 2 was illegal and unwarranted and the amount withheld by ONGC was payable to the appellant. The very prayer to declare the amount levied by the Superintending Engineer as illegal is against the tenor of the terms of the contract (Clause 2) between the parties. By virtue of the finality clause in the contract, any decision taken by the Superintending Engineer in levying compensation cannot be referred to an arbitrator. The parties have consciously agreed to have finality to the decision of the Superintending Engineer and the same cannot be frustrated by challenging the same as illegal. Any other meaning to the finality clause in the contract and allowing further adjudication by another authority would make the agreed Clause 2 and Clause 25 of the agreement meaningless and redundant17. As held by the Division Bench of the High Court, whether there was delay in completion of work and the levy of liquated damages, could not have been determined by the arbitrator. Vide letters dated 08.12.1999, 09.12.1999, 17.12.1999, 11.02.2000 and 17.04.2000, ONGC called upon the respondent/contractor to remove the defects failing which it would get the defects remedied at his cost. According to ONGC, the completion time was extended without prejudice to the right of ONGC to recover compensation in accordance with Clause 2 of the agreement. The contention of ONGC is that by the letter dated 15.05.2001, the contractor was put on notice that in exercise of the power conferred on the Superintending Engineer under Clause 2, the contractor is liable to pay 10% of the contract value by way of compensation. The contractor was informed by the said letter dated 15.05.2001 that the compensation is levied on him for the period of 39 weeks at half per cent per week subject to maximum of 10% of the contract value and that the actual amount of compensation shall be worked out on checking the final bill and the same shall be recovered by ONGC from the final bill. By the subsequent letter dated 25.05.2001, the claimant was informed that the final bill is ready and the claimant was required to reconcile the final bill after adjusting the compensation18. A reading of the other terms of the contract would further indicate that under Clauses 13 and 14 of the agreement, the parties have agreed for payment of compensation and non-payment of compensation in certain situations. Significantly, Clauses 13 and 14 of the agreement do not have any finality clause which indicates that any dispute arising out of such clauses may be a dispute referable to arbitration. However, in respect of levy of compensation for the delay, Clause 2 of the agreement specifically makes the decision of the Superintending Engineer, final. The entire contract between the parties and the terms thereon have to be read as a whole to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of the contract. In claim No.6, the contractor has sought for declaration that the penalty under Clause 2 imposed by ONGC was illegal and unwarranted and the amount withheld by ONGC was payable to the contractor with interest @ 24%. Claim No.6 sought for by the contractor is clearly in violation of Clause 2 of the agreement between the parties, in and by which, the parties have agreed that the decision taken by the Superintending Engineer levying compensation shall be final. The finality clause in the contract cannot therefore be frustrated by calling upon the arbitrator to decide on the correctness of levy of compensation by the Superintending EngineerOnce the parties have decided that certain matters are to be decided by the Superintending Engineer and his decision would be final, the same cannot be the subject matter of arbitrationIn the present case, the parties themselves have agreed that the decision of the Superintending Engineer in levying compensation is final and the same is an excepted matter and the determination shall be only by the Superintending Engineer and the correctness of his decision cannot be called in question in the arbitration proceedings and the remedy if any, will arise in the ordinary course of law23. As rightly contended by the learned ASG, in BSNLs case, Clause 16(2) of the agreement does not create any kind of liability to pay liquidated damages; but only provides for entitlement of BSNL to collect the damages in case of any delay in supply on the part of the supplier under Clause 16(2)24. In BSNLs case, Clause 16 provided for entitlement of the party to recover liquidated damages. In Clause 16(2), the phrases used value of delayed quantity and for each week of delay clearly show that it is necessary to find out whether there has been delay on the part of the supplier in discharging his obligation. Thus, in BSNLs case, in determining whether there is delay or not, a process of adjudication is envisaged. Per contra, in the present case, Clause 2 of the agreement is a complete mechanism for determination of liability. The right to levy damages for delay is exclusively conferred upon the Superintending Engineer and Clause 2 of the present agreement is a complete mechanism for determination of liability and when such compensation is levied by the Superintending Engineer, the same is final and binding. The parties have also consciously agreed that for the delay caused, the Superintending Engineer shall levy the compensation of the amount equal to half per cent and the said amount shall not exceed from 10% of the cost of the work and the determination by the Superintending Engineer is final and cannot be the subject matter of arbitration. In claim No.6, the prayer sought for by the contractor to declare the compensation levied by the Superintending Engineer as illegal is contradictory to the agreed terms between the parties. So far as the liquidated damages determined and levied, by virtue of Clause 2, is out of the purview of the arbitration especially in view of the fact that under the very same clause, the parties have agreed that the decision of the Superintending Engineer shall be final25. Learned Single Judge erred in proceeding under the presumptive footing that the compensation levied by the Superintending Engineer was in the nature of penalty. It was actually levy of liquidated damages/compensation in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement. Levy of compensation of Rs.32,79,828/- in Arbitration Case No.297A of 2002 and Rs.42,08,940/- in Arbitration Case No.297 of 2002 in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement is final and the same could not have been the subject matter of arbitration. Applying the ratio of Vishwanath Sood, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the order of the learned Arbitrator with regard to claim No.6 by holding that levy of liquidated damages/compensation is adjustable against the final bill payable to the appellant. The impugned judgment does not therefore, suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.