TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther contended by the Appellant that the Impugned Award is also liable to be set aside on the ground that it suffers from patent illegality due to lack of any evidence to substantiate the claims of the Respondent/claimant. To buttress this argument, the Appellant would contend the following: a. While the Ld. AT has placed reliance on the Chartered Accountant's Certificates [CA Certificate] for the claims with respect to the 'Basic Idling Claim' and 'interest on claim of basic idling of work', no evidence was led by the Respondent to prove the legal sanctity of the CA Certificates. Additionally, neither the Chartered Accountant was examined, nor were any audited statements of accounts/documents produced before the Ld. AT to corroborate the respective claim of the Respondent. The Appellant would further contend that the claims that have been awarded on the basis of the CA Certificates, are perverse and are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the same has been awarded based on no evidence at all. b. Secondly, the claim regarding the Interest on Profit-loss on delayed payment awarded by the Ld. AT is also perverse as the same is also based on no evidence at all. The App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls as to the various amounts mentioned as against each expense head has been provided in the certificates and it is these certificate upon which complete reliance has been placed by the Respondent and on which the Ld. AT in its Award has dealt with in the following manner: - "168. The Claimants, on demand by the Respondents for reasonable and demonstrable compensation for the delays caused by the owner, submitted their Chartered Accountants certificates as per the books of Accounts (for the project) as below, vide their letter TEN/RD/C-1264 dated July 24, 2003 (pages 45-50 of statement of claims) Break-up of expenditure claimed for the period August, 1993 to December 1999: Sl. No. Expense Head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Staff salary and related costs 46,43,718.00 2. Wages and related costs 58,66,424.00 3. Stores consumed and storage charges 15,05,565.00 4. Bank guarantee commission 10,17,826.00 5. Insurance 37,98,590.00 6. Office maintenance 2,39,591.00 7. Travelling and conveyance 4,62,630.00 8. Repair and maintenance 3,89,179.00 9. Vehicle running and maintenance 14,79,779.00 10. Miscellaneous expenses 1,99,243.00 Total:- 1,96,01,545.00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., However, in our considered view in the circumstances of this case, 12%per annum simple rate of interest would be a reasonable recompense on the money due to the party of which it was deprived of. The amount of interest at this rate will, therefore, work out to Rs. 1,43,71,354.00 only. .....(B) The total amount of claim in respect of idling including interest thereon will be Rs. 2,28,72,264.00 + Rs. 1,43,71,354.00 = Rs. 3,72,43,618.00 (Rs. Three crores seventy two lacs forty three thousand six hundred eighteen) only. .......(C) The Claimants have not claimed any interest during the period from November, 2001 to 24th July, 2003 (i.e, the date of completion of the Transmission Line). As such we also have not considered the same." 9. The Ld. AT unquestioningly, without giving any reasoning, accepts the CA certificates. This acceptance is without even the Chartered Accountant [CA] having been examined as a witness. The CA Certificates itself had never been proved. In any event, the CA could have only verified the CA Certificates and not the underlying documents. 10. This Court further notes that the person signing the CA Certificates is not the author of any of the documents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed. During the cross examination of the respondent's witness, it is clearly evident from the following that no such amounts recoverable from the petitioner was shown in the respondent's record. "Question No. 32: I am putting it to you any amount recoverable by the company is not required to be shown in the IT Return. Is that correct or not? Answer: It is not correct. Question No. 35: I put to you that your company has not shown any recoveries against the DTL in the IT Return on the basis of idle labour or the claims raised in this arbitration proceedings since 1993 till date. Answer: This question has already been answered. Question No. 37: I put it to you that the claims raised not mentioned in any of the accounting records of the company w.e.f. 1993 till date. Answer: As stated, it is not required to be shown." 17. The impugned judgment is completely silent on this challenge. There is no application of mind on the part of the learned Single Judge and what is seen is an exposition of how the High Courts should not interfere with an Award under Section 34 of the A&C Act. This, to say the least, would not suffice. 18. We are of the considered opinion that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he losses the contractor may have suffered. While these formulae are helpful when needed, they alone cannot prove the contractor's loss of profit. They are useful in assessing losses, but only if the contractor has shown with evidence the loss of profits and opportunities it suffered owing to the prolongation. 19. The law, as it should stand thus, is that for claims related to loss of profit, profitability or opportunities to succeed, one would be required to establish the following conditions: first, there was a delay in the completion of the contract; second, such delay is not attributable to the claimant; third, the claimant's status as an established contractor, handling substantial projects; and fourth, credible evidence to substantiate the claim of loss of profitability. On perusal of the records, we are satisfied that the fourth condition, namely, the evidence to substantiate the claim of loss of profitability remains unfulfilled in the present case. 20. The First Award was interfered with by the High Court for the reasons noted above. The Arbitrator, in view of such previous determination made by the High Court, could have granted damages to the appellant based ....