TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered into between the parties on 28.08.2007. The original work period under the said agreement was for 36 months, i.e. from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010. There was a dispute with respect to the non-performance and unsatisfactory work done by the respondents. However, the respondents were granted extension of contract twice. Thereafter, a letter dated 25.11.2011 was issued by the Executive Engineer to the respondents and other contractors entrusted with the task of construction, granting a second extension of time of contract for construction work. The respondents were called upon to make compliances with the issues pointed out, at the earliest. In the said communication dated 25.11.2011, it was stated that if the deficiencies are not removed and/or complied with, in that case, there shall be suspension of payment under Clause 2.8 of the General Conditions of Contract (for short 'the GCC'). On 05.12.2011, a review meeting was held between the parties, followed by a letter dated 07.12.2011 issued by the respondents-original claimants in reply/compliance of the aforesaid letter dated 25.11.2011. It was the case on behalf of the respondents-original claimants that without properly conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms on merits and ultimately allowed the claims to the extent of Rs. 2,10,87,304/under different heads as under: Claims Amount Allowed Comments Claim 1A - Claim Unpaid Bills from 1/11/2011 to 28/2/2012 53,37,294 50,59,957 Partly allowed Claim 1B - Claim Due/Unpaid against Bills from Oct 2007 to Oct 2011 79,04,819 67,07,032 Partly allowed Claim 1C - Claim against Design of Bridges 8,30,000 8,30,000 Allowed Total Claim 1 1,40,72,11 3 1,25,96,98 9 Claim 2 - Invoice for the month of March, 2012 (month of termination) 11,05,954 11,05,954 Allowed Claim 3 - Claim towards Shifting of Office from Ranchi to site 1,57,000 ­ Disallowed Claim 4 - Claim towards Laboratory set up at site 4,41,000 ­ Disallowed Claim 5 - Demobilisation of staff 5,00,000 ­ Disallowed Claim 6 - Bank Guarantee charge for extended period 33,730....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the High Court has materially erred in not properly considering that the suspension under the agreement was not the suspension of work per se, rather was suspension of all payments to the consultants and therefore there was no question of dilution/go bye of the suspension letter. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the High Court has not properly appreciated/considered the scheme of the contract. It is submitted that in case of non-performance of the contract satisfactorily, the first step was suspension of payment and if the failure in performance is not remedied, then the consequence which follows is the next step that being notice of termination by issuing 30 days' notice. It is submitted that suspension is either operative or revoked by resuming the payments, for, suspension is suspension of payment and not suspension of work/contract. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has materially erred in confirming the findings recorded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal that the termination of the contract was illegal and without following due procedure as required under the contract. 4. While opposing the present s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bit of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this Court has observed and held that even when the view taken by the arbitrator is a plausible view, and/or when two views are possible, a particular view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal which is also reasonable should not be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 6.2 In the case of Datar Switchgear Ltd. (supra), this Court has observed and held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and the findings of fact which are arrived at by the arbitrators on the basis of the evidence on record are not to be scrutinized as if the Court was sitting in appeal. In para 51 of the judgment, it is observed and held as under: 51 Categorical findings are arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal to the effect that insofar as Respondent 2 is concerned, it was always ready and willing to perform its contractual obligations, but was prevented by the appellant from such performance. Another specific finding which is returned by the Arbitral Tribunal is that the appellant had not given the list of locations and, therefore, its submission that Respondent 2 had adequate lists of locations availab....