Saturday, July 5, 2025
Latest:
delhihighcourt

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.  Vs J.KUMAR- CRTG JV -Judgment by Delhi High Court

Information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.04.2022
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 603/2020 & IA Nos.12479/2020, 12480/2020 & 3823/2021
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD ….. Petitioner
versus
M/S J. KUMAR-CRTG JV ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Ms Aishwarya Bhati, ASG with Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, Mr Gulshan Sharma, Mr Sushaar Chaudhary and Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi and Mr Nithin Chowdary, Advocates with Mr Sushant Tripathi, Law Officer, DMRC.

For the Respondent : Dr Shashwat Bajpai with Mr Vishal Aggarwal, Advocates.

AND

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 39/2020 & IA No.13874/2021
M/S J.KUMAR-CRTG JV ….. Petitioner
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Nakul Dewan Senior Advocate with Mr Sambit Nanda, Dr Shashwat Bajpai with Mr Vishal Aggarwal, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Ms Aishwarya Bhati, ASG with Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, Mr Gulshan Sharma, Mr Sushaar Chaudhary and Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi and Mr Nithin Chowdary, Advocates with Mr Sushant Tripathi, Law Officer, DMRC.
CORAM
HON�BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The parties have filed these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the �A&C Act�) impugning an arbitral award dated 26.10.2019 (hereafter �the impugned award�) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted of three members, Mr R.K.Gupta, Mr R.K. Aggarwal and Mr Rakesh Mishra as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereafter �the Arbitral Tribunal�).
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with a contract dated 28.09.2012 (hereafter �the Contract�).
Factual Matrix
3. The controversy in the present case arises in the following context:
3.1 Tenders were invited by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (hereafter �DMRC�) for the contract for the �design and construction of Tunnel by Shield TBM, Tunnels, Stations and Ramps by cut and cover method between Lajpat Nagar and Hazrat Nizamuddin Stations (both including) for underground works on Mukundpur- Yamuna Vihar Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project of Phase III� (hereafter �the Project�). The Project comprised of four stations namely Lajpat Nagar, Vinoba Puri, Ashram and Hazrat Nizamuddin connected with tunnels.
3.2 On 22.05.2012, M/s J. Kumar-CRTG JV (hereafter �CRTG�) participated in the bidding process pursuant to the aforesaid Notice Inviting Tenders and submitted a bid of ? 909.1917 crores plus USD 1,09,09,423.3. On 16.07.2012, DMRC issued a Letter of Acceptance (hereafter �LoA�), in favor of CRTG accepting its bid for the contract price.
3.3 Thereafter, the Contract for the Project was signed by the parties on 28.09.2012.
3.4 The work commenced on 23.07.2012, prior to the signing of the Contract and the stipulated time for completion of work was forty-two months. However, the Project could not be completed within the stipulated period (that is, prior to 22.01.2016) and the time to do so was extended till 31.01.2019. The work was finally completed on 31.12.2018.
3.5 The dispute between the parties relates to CRTG�s claim for payment of additional amounts as compensation for the increase in costs on account of encountering unforeseen physical conditions; compensation of loss due to flooding and leakage of 900mm and 1500mm DJB pipeline; payment for providing railing on parapet wall of ramp at Hazrat Nizamuddin station; cost incurred for environmental compensation charges (hereafter �ECC�); compensation for underutilization of resources at Ashram station; and refund of interest on advance.
3.6 The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 07.05.2018. And, by a letter dated 24.05.2018, DMRC informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the parties had mutually decided that all disputes under the Contract would be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal under Clause 17.9 of the General Conditions of Contract (hereafter �GCC�).
4. The impugned award was delivered on 26.10.2019. Thereafter, CRTG filed an application dated 25.11.2019 under Section 33 of the A&C Act seeking correction of certain errors in the impugned award. The said application was dismissed on 10.12.2019. The Arbitral Tribunal held that there were no typographical errors in the impugned award and CRTG�s application was in effect seeking review of the impugned award by re-appreciating the evidence on record and considering new evidence.
5. The claims made by CRTG before the Arbitral Tribunal are set out below:
CLAIM
PARTICULARS
AMOUNT
Claim no.1
Refund of amount of interest on mobilization advance and machinery beyond the original date of completion of work recovered from bills
?58.28 lacs + USD 11128/-
Claim no.2
Compensation of additional cost on encountering unforeseen physical conditions viz rock strata instead of soil at Hazrat Nizamuddin station and cut and cover tunnel at Hazrat Nizamuddin
?87.89 crores + ?2.06 crores
Claim no.3
Compensation of loss sustained due to flooding due to leakage of 900mm DJB pipeline
?711.96 lacs
Claim no.4
Compensation of loss sustained due to flooding due to bursting of 1500mm DJB pipeline.
?142.02 lacs
Claim no.5
Payment for providing railing in parapet wall of ramp at Hazrat Nizamuddin
?13.28 lacs
Claim no.6
Compensation of ECC in respect of commercial vehicles entering Delhi and bringing in various kinds of materials
?1.38 crores
Claim no.7
Compensation of additional cost on account of underutilization of resources at Ashram station
?27.95 crores
Claim no.8
Interest @18% on all claims from the date of filing of Statement of Claims till the date of payment

6. DMRC filed its Statement of Defence, however, it did not raise any counter-claims.
7. The impugned award was delivered by the majority with Mr R.K. Aggarwal entering a partially dissenting opinion. The Arbitral Tribunal partially allowed the claims of CRTG and held that CRTG was entitled to an amount of ?9,84,56,714/- plus USD 19,038 against its Claim Nos. 1,2,5 and 7. Claim Nos. 3, 4 and 6 of CRTG were rejected. Further, the Arbitral Tribunal declined CRTG�s claim for interest till the date of the award. However, it awarded future interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the impugned award, if the awarded amount was not paid within ninety days from the date of the award.
8. With respect to Claim No.1, The Arbitral Tribunal held that Clauses 11.2.4 and 11.2.5 of the GCC relied upon by DMRC, did not specify as to �delay by whom� and to that extent the concerned clauses were ambiguous. Further, it was an accepted fact that there was delay on behalf of DMRC in handing over the sites and extension of time for completion of the Project was granted. Considering that there was a breach on the part of DMRC, CRTG was entitled to claim compensation for losses as provided under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereafter the �Contract Act�). Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded CRTG an amount of ?54,90,013/- plus USD 19,038/- in satisfaction of Claim No.1.
9. In respect of Claim No.2, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded a sum of ?1,48,53,917/-. The Arbitral tribunal did not accept that the exclusionary clauses (including Clause 4.9 of GCC) precluded CRTG from making any such claim.
10. The Arbitral Tribunal, further, awarded an amount of ?12,66,409/- to CRTG in respect of CRTG�s claim for construction of the railing (Claim No.5). The Arbitral Tribunal held that structural drawing attached with the Tender Documents were basically to show the general scheme of structures and buildings to be constructed and the grills/railings could not be held as a structural part. Thus, CRTG was entitled to payment as per item 10.2 under Schedule C of the BOQ for construction of the railing.
11. Lastly, in respect of Claim No.7, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded an amount of ?7,68,46,375/-. It was held that DMRC failed to hand over the sites on time and an extension of time was granted upto 31.01.2019 due to which, CRTG had to keep its resources engaged for twenty-eight months with limited productivity.
12. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the parties have filed the present petitions.

Reasons and Conclusion
13. DMRC is essentially aggrieved by the Arbitral Tribunal awarding claims in respect of refund of interest charged on the mobilisation advance for the extended period (Claim No.1); compensation for excavation in hard rock (Claim No.2); construction of an additional item � railing (Claim No.5); and, compensation for under-utilization of resources (Claim No.7).
14. Insofar as Claim No.1 is concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal has directed refund of interest on mobilization advance, which was recovered by DMRC. DMRC had provided interest free mobilization advance and advance for plant & machinery, which were to be recovered from the interim payments made to CRTG after it had completed 20% of the original value of work as contracted. In terms of the Contract, DMRC was entitled to recover interest in the event there was any delay in execution of the works.
15. DMRC relies on Clauses 11.2.4 and 11.2.5 of the GCC, which are set out below:
�11.2.4 a. The recovery of Advances shall commence when 20% of the original contract value of the work has been paid and will be completed by the time 85% of the Contact Value has been paid of the original completion date whichever is earlier. As far as possible the recovery of advances shall be limited to 30% of an account bill.
b. No advance shall be given after 40% of the original contract amount has been paid.
c. The contractor shall always have the option to have the recoveries commenced and / or completed earlier, and / or to have recoveries affected in instalments of higher amount and also to repay part of whole of the advance by direct payment rather than through On-account Bills.

11.2.5 Should there be delay in the progress and completion of work, as a result of which it is not possible to recover the advance and interest thereon, before the date of completion stipulated in the Contract, then the interest to be charged from the Contractor on the remaining portion of the advance beyond the original completion date specified in the Contract, shall be the State Bank of India prime lending Rate plus 2% per annum or 10% per annum whichever is higher.�

16. In terms of the aforesaid Clauses, DMRC recovered interest on mobilization advance and advance against plant and machinery during the extended period of work. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of ?54,90,013/- plus USD 19,038 was awarded in favour of CRTG being the amount of interest recovered by DMRC. DMRC�s challenge to the said award is premised on the same being contrary to Clauses 11.2.4 and 11.2.5 of GCC.
17. The Arbitral Tribunal found that delay in execution of the works was attributable to DMRC. It reasoned that DMRC could not recover interest on the mobilization advance for the extended period as it was responsible for the delay. Undisputedly, if DMRC had breached the Contract and is responsible for the delay, it would � subject to other provisions of the Contract � be liable to compensate CRTG for any loss that it may have incurred on account of the said breach. Admittedly, CRTG was not liable to pay any interest if the Contract was executed within the timeframe as stipulated. Thus, the levy of interest in terms of Clause 11.2.5 of GCC is a direct loss relatable to DMRC�s breach. In this view, even if DMRC is entitled to recover any interest on advances in terms of Clause 11.2.5 of GCC, it would require to make good the said loss. It is in this context that the Arbitral Tribunal held that the reference to delay in Clause 11.2.5 of GCC ought to be read as delay not attributable to DMRC. Given the limited scope of challenge under Section 34 of the A&C Act, this Court finds no ground to fault the said decision.
18. The next issue to be examined is DMRC�s challenge to award compensation on account of CRTG encountering unforeseen conditions. CRTG�s claim in this regard is premised on the basis that it had encountered rock strata instead of soil at the Hazrat Nizamuddin Station and therefore, it was entitled to be compensated for the same. It claimed that the geotechnical data as provided along with the tender documents was available upto Bore Hole No.63 (i.e. upto the middle of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Station). The data for three Bore Holes, being Bore Hole Nos.61, 62 and 63, which covered the stretch between Hazrat Nizamuddin Station and cut & cover tunnel before Hazrat Nizamuddin Station, indicated �Yamuna sand / sandy silt / clayey sandy silt� upto a depth of thirty meters. CRTG claimed that it had relied on the said data in submitting its bid. However, while carrying out excavation, it encountered a strata of rock at depths varying from seven meters to twenty-four meters below ground level. This was so even in the stretch that was covered under the three Bore Holes (Bore Hole Nos.61,62&63). CRTG claimed that there was steep variation in the soil strata in the stretch covering the Hazrat Nizamuddin Station towards the cut & cover tunnel. According to DMRC, this required a change in the construction methodology resulting in additional costs and time overruns. CRTG claimed that it could not conduct any geotechnical investigation prior to submission of its bid due to various reasons including (i) non-availability/inaccessibility of land at Hazrat Nizamuddin; (ii) existence of various underground utilities; and, (iii) heavy traffic at the ring road.
19. It is DMRC�s case that CRTG�s was obliged to carry out the necessary investigation and apprise itself of the site conditions. The terms of the Contract made it explicitly clear that nothing extra would be claimed by CRTG. In this regard, DMRC relied on the following clauses of the tender documents:
General Conditions of Contract (GCC)
�4.9 i. The Employer shall have made available to the Contractor with the Tender documents such relevant data in Employer�s possession on hydrological and sub-surface conditions. The accuracy or reliability of the data/studies/reports and of any other information supplied at any time by the Employer or Engineer is not warranted with respect to the viability of his design and execution of Works and shall conduct further investigations considered necessary by him at his own cost and any error, discrepancies if found in Employer�s data at any stage will not constitute ground for any claim for extra time and costs.
ii. The Contractor shall be deemed to have obtained all necessary information as to risks, contingencies, and other circumstances which may influence, or affect the Tender or Works.
iii. The Contractor shall also be deemed to have inspected and examined the Site, its surroundings, the above data and other available information, with respect to the viability of his design and execution of Works and to have satisfied himself before submitting the Tender, as to all the relevant matters including without limitation:
(a) the form and nature of the Site, Including the sub-surface conditions:
(b) the hydrological and climatic conditions:
(c) the extent and nature of the work, Plant, and Materials necessary for the execution and completion of the Works and remedying of any defects.
(d) the applicable laws, procedures and labour practices.
(e) The Contractor�s requirement for access, accommodation, facilities, personnel, power, transport and other services.
(f) The risk of injury or damage to property adjacent to the Site and to the occupiers of such property or any other risk.�

Instruction to Tenderers

�A7 Site Visits

A7.1 The Tenderer is advised to visit and examine the Site of Works and its surroundings and obtain for himself on his own responsibility all information that may be necessary for preparing the Tender and entering into a contract for the proposed work. The costs of visiting the Site shall be borne by the Tenderer. It shall be deemed that the Contractor has undertaken a visit to the Site of Works and is aware of the site conditions prior to the submission of the tender documents.
A7.2 The Tenderer and any of his person will be granted permission by the Employer to enter upon his premises and lands for the purpose of such inspection, but only upon the express condition that the Tenderer, and his personnel, will release and indemnify the Employer and his personnel from and against all liability in respect thereof and will be responsible for death or personal injury, loss of or damage to property and any other loss, damage, costs and expenses incurred as a result of the inspection,
A7.3 The Tenderer shall note General Conditions of Contract (GCC) Sub-Clause 4.9 in which it is deemed that the Tenderer has taken into account all the factors that may affect his Tender in preparing his offer.�
xxxx xxxx xxxx

�B2 Content of Supporting Documents

B2.1 The Geotechnical Report containing site investigation information is included in Volume 9 of the tender documents. The contents of these reports are for general information only and any interpretation of the results shall be construed as opinions only and not as representations or warranties as to the actual site or sub-soil conditions. The tenderers� attention is specifically drawn to paragraph B2.3 below.
B2.2 The Tenderer shall note the existence of over ground, at grate and underground structures, utilities and infrastructure in the near vicinity of the Works to be constructed.
B2.3 The accuracy or reliability of the documents and reports referred to in this Clause B2 and of any other information supplied, prepared or commissioned at any time by the Employer or others in connection with the Contract is not warranted. The Tenderer�s attention is drawn to sub-clauses 4.9 and 4.10 of GCC in this regard. The Tenderer should visit, examine and assess the Site including working conditions and will be deemed to have satisfied himself of the risks and obligations under the Contract.

B3. Clarification of Tender Documents.
B3.1 The Tendarer shall check the pages of all documents against page numbers given in indexes and summaries and, in the event of discovery of any discrepancy, the Tenderer hall inform the Chief Engineer/Tender, DMRC forthwith:
B3.2 Should the Tenderer for any reason whatsoever, be in doubt about the meaning of anything contained in the Invitation to Tender, Tender Documents or the extent of detail in the Employer�s Requirements, Outline-Design Specifications, Outline Construction Specifications and Tender Drawings, the Tenderer shall seek clarification from CE/Tender, The DMRC will respond in writing to any request for clarification received in writing from tenderers-prior, to dead line. Written copies of the response will be sent to all prospective tenderers who have purchased the tender document All communications between the Tenderer and DMRC shall be conducted in writing.
B3.3 Except for any such written clarification by CE/Tender, DMRC which is expressly stated lode by way of an addendum to the documents referred to in paragraphs B1.1(a) to (I) above and/or for any other document issued by the Employer which is similarly described, no written or verbal communication, representation or explanation by any employee of the Employer or the Engineer shall be taken to bind or fetter the Employer or the Engineer under the Contract.�
20. DMRC also contested CRTG�s assertion that sites were inaccessible to it. It pointed out that there was no material on record to establish that CRTG had made any application or request for access to sites. Further, CRTG had dug a Bore Hole in September, 2012 prior to the site being handed over to CRTG on 16.08.2013 (A0 within Smriti Van, which according to CRTG was inaccessible, prior to the said site being handed over to CRTG). According to DMRC, this established that CRTG had access to the site in question.
21. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted CRTG�s contention that it had encountered unforeseen conditions. It relied on Clause 4.23 of GCC, which entitled CRTG to claim compensation for encountering any �physical condition�, other than climatic conditions, which could not have been reasonably foreseen by any experienced contractor. The relevant extract of Clause 4.23 of GCC is set out below:
�4.23 In this Clause �physical conditions� mean natural physical conditions, which the Contractor encounters at Site while executing the Works excluding climatic conditions:

If, during the execution of the Works, the Contractor shall encounter physical conditions which in his opinion, could not have been reasonably foreseen by an experienced Contractor the Contractor shall forthwith give written notice thereof to the Engineer and if, in the opinion of the Engineer, such conditions could not have been reasonably foreseen by an experienced Contractor, then the Engineer shall certify and the Employer shall pay reasonable additional cost to which the Contractor shall have been put by reason of such conditions in the following cases:

a. for complying with any instruction which the Engineer may issue to the Contractor in connection therewith, and
b. for any proper and reasonable, measures approved by the Engineer which���.The decision of the Engineer as to the additional cost shall be final and binding.�
22. Undisputedly, one of the principal controversies between the parties was whether encountering hard rock could not have been reasonably foreseen by CRTG. The Arbitral Tribunal answered the said issue in the affirmative for various reasons. First, it found that data as submitted by DMRC, which reflected sandy soil was in fact incorrect. Second, it found that there was no time available for carrying out a detailed soil survey at the tender stage, therefore, CRTG could not have been expected to carry out the detailed survey. Third, there were serious difficulties in accessing the site for carrying out detailed sub-soil investigation, which included heavy traffic, inaccessibility of certain sites, and presence of extensive utilities.
23. It was reasonable to expect CRTG to rely on the data as provided by DMRC. The reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal cannot by any stretch be said to be perverse or not plausible. It is also necessary to note that the Arbitral Tribunal�s decision also turns on certain findings of facts including, whether the sites were in fact available to CRTG and whether it was possible for CRTG to carry out a detailed soil investigation.
24. The question whether the impugned award runs contrary to the express terms of the Contract, is a contentious one. Undisputedly, in terms of Clause 4.9 of GCC, CRTG was required to examine the site and appraise itself of the viability of designs and execution of the works. It expressly provided that the bidder would satisfy himself with regard to the �form and nature of the site including the sub-surface conditions�. Given the express terms of Clause 4.9 of GCC and 4.9 of SCC, CRTG�s claim would be unsustainable. However, the said clauses were required to be read in conjunction with Clause 4.23 of GCC, which expressly provides for payment of compensation to a contractor in respect of any physical condition that could not be reasonably foreseen. The Arbitral Tribunal evaluated the dispute in the context of the aforesaid clauses and held that Clause 4.9 of GCC and Clause 4.9 of SCC were to be read in a restrictive manner and were applicable only in case of any minor deviations and conditions and ones that could be reasonably foreseen or evaluated. The Arbitral Tribunal observed that Clause 4.9 of GCC is a �routine clause�.
25. Ms. Bhati, learned ASG appearing for DMRC had assailed the said observation as perverse and one that lacks judicial approach. She contended that the Arbitral Tribunal had brushed aside the contractual provisions thus, vitiating the impugned award as patently illegal.
26. Although, the expression �routine clause� may not be apposite, however, a plain reading of the impugned award indicates that the Arbitral Tribunal has sought to read Clause 4.9 of GCC with Clause 4.23 of GCC, in a harmonious manner. Undoubtedly, the question before the Arbitral Tribunal was a contentious one. It is well settled that the question as to construction of a term of the contract falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. In McDermott International Inc.�v.�Burn Standard Co. Ltd.: (2006) 11 SCC 181, the Supreme Court had observed as under:
�112.�It is trite that the terms of the contract can be express or implied. The conduct of the parties would also be a relevant factor in the matter of construction of a contract. The construction of the contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators having regard to the wide nature, scope and ambit of the arbitration agreement and they cannot be said to have misdirected themselves in passing the award by taking into consideration the conduct of the parties. It is also trite that correspondences exchanged by the parties are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of construction of a contract. Interpretation of a contract is a matter for the arbitrator to determine, even if it gives rise to determination of a question of law. (See�Pure Helium India (P) Ltd.�v.�ONGC�[(2003) 8 SCC 593] and�D.D. Sharma�v.�Union of India�[(2004) 5 SCC 325].

113.�Once, thus, it is held that the arbitrator had the jurisdiction, no further question shall be raised and the court will not exercise its jurisdiction unless it is found that there exists any bar on the face of the award.�

27. In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal has interpreted the provisions of Clause 4.9 of GCC and Clause 4.23 of GCC. This Court is not called upon to examine the correctness of the said interpretation but merely to ascertain whether the said view is a possible one. Tested on this anvil, this Court is unable to accept that the Arbitral Tribunal�s view warrants any interference in this proceeding.
28. The next question to be examined is whether the Arbitral Tribunal�s decision to accept CRTG�s claim for additional payment for providing railing on the parapet wall of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Station is perverse. Whilst CRTG relied upon Clause 2.2(a) of the Employer�s Requirements (Functional) of GCC and contended that payment for the said railing was part of the finishing works and was required to be paid in terms of Schedule-B and Schedule-C of the BOQ; DMRC claimed that the railing was a part of the permanent work shown in Structural Tender Drawing No. DMRC Design S6-RAMP-01 and 02 and therefore, included in the permanent works. The Arbitral Tribunal had evaluated the said contention and had found that the drawings attached with the Tender Documents were indicative drawings to reflect the general scheme of structures and the grill / railing was not a structural component of any building / structure. Thus, DMRC required to pay for the same as per item 10.2 of Schedule-C of BOQ. As is evident from the above, the controversy essentially relates to interpretation of the Drawing/Contract. The question whether the railing formed part of the permanent structure of the architectural finishing work is a matter of interpretation of the Contract. The Arbitral Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the parties observed that the structural drawings attached with the Tender Documents were basically to show the general scheme of structures and buildings required to be constructed. In this context, the grill or railing was not a structural component of any building or structure. It neither supported any structure nor carried any load. Further, the Arbitral Tribunal observed that there was no specific mention of railing, which was a separate item to be included as a part of the scope of the work. It accepted the contention that item of fabrication and installation of the �railing� was covered under Section 6.0 (Metal Works) of Schedule-B (Architectural Finishing Works) of the BOQ.
29. The decision of the Arbitral Tribunal is supported by cogent reasoning and is dispositive of the dispute between the parties. As observed above, the scope of examination under Section 34 of the A&C Act does not extend to re-evaluation of evidence or re-adjudication of the disputes. It is trite law that this Court does not sit as a First Appellate Court to examine the correctness of the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. In the present case, the reasoning that the drawings of railing included in the structural drawings were only indicative of the structures and could not be interpreted to be included in the scope of structural work, cannot be interfered with.
30. The next question to be examined is whether the Arbitral Tribunal�s decision to award sum of ?7,68,46,375/- as compensation on account of idling / under-utilization of resources deployed at Ashram station during the initial period of twenty-nine months due to delay in finalizing the revised layout of the station and the delay in handing over of the land, is patently illegal.
31. The Arbitral Tribunal evaluated the evidence led by the parties and found that there was an inordinate delay on the part of DMRC in handing over the land at Ashram Station. The said land was required to be handed over by August, 2012. The works were to commence on 16.07.2012 and the stipulated period for completion of the Contract was agreed at three years six months. Admittedly, there was a delay of more than twenty-eight months in handing over the site. Further, the length of the station was also reduced. The delay was largely for various reasons including certain litigation in respect of �Marble House� area. Admittedly, the Architectural Designs Drawings had to be revised to restrict the length of the station within the available area and to add another floor for creating additional space. DMRC opposed the claim by referring to the contractual provisions. It relied on Clause 2.2 of GCC and Clause 8.3 of GCC, which are set out below:
�2.2 The Employer shall grant the Contractor right of access to, and / or possession of, the Site progressively for the completion of Works. Such right and possession may not be exclusive to the Contractor. The Contractor will draw / modify the schedule for completion of Works according to progressive possession / light of such sites.
If the Contractor suffers delay from failure on the part of the Employer to grant right of access to, or possession of the Site, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer in a period of 28 days of such occurrence. After receipt of such notice the Engineer shall proceed to determine any extension of time to which the Contractor is entitled and shall notify the Contractor accordingly.

For any such delay in handing over of site, Contractors will be entitled to only reasonable extension of time and no monetary claims whatsoever shall be paid.

*** *** *** ***

8.3 In case of delay on the part of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be liable to pay liquidated damages and any other compensation for the damages suffered by the Employer as per clause 8.5. This is without prejudice to the right of the Employer to rescind the Contract.

Failure or delay by the Employer or the Engineer, to hand over to the Contractor the Site necessary for execution of Works or any part of the Works, or to give necessary notice to commence the Works For to provide necessary Drawings or instructions or classifications or to supply any material, plant or machinery, which under the Contract the responsibility of the Employer, shall in no way affect or vitiate the Contract or alter the character thereof; or entitle the Contractor to damages or compensation thereof but in any such casa, the Engineer shall extent the time period for the completion of the Contract, as in his opinion is/are reasonable.�

32. The Arbitral Tribunal examined the said clauses and found that the same were violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act. The Arbitral Tribunal had also relied upon the following passage from the decision dated 23.02.2010 of this Court in M/s Simplex Concrete Piles v. Union of India: 2010 (115) DRJ 616:
“Provisions of the contract which will set at naught the legislative intendment of the Contract Act, I would hold the same to be void being against public� interest and public policy. Such clauses are also void because it would defeat the provisions of law which is surely not in public interest to ensure Smooth operation of commercial relations. I therefore hold that the contractual clauses such as Clauses 11A to 11C, on their interpretation to disentitle the aggrieved party to the benefits of Sections 55 and 73, would be void being violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act.�
33. The Arbitral Tribunal found that DMRC was in breach of its obligation. It had the option to order suspension of work as per the Contract clause at Ashram Station, however, it had failed to do so. In the circumstances, DMRC was required to compensate CRTG for its breaches. In the circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal held that Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 of GCC would not absolve DMRC of its liability to pay compensation.
34. The Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the question of fact as well as of law. Clearly, the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that by virtue of Section 23 of the Contract Act, Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 of GCC which proscribe CRTG from claiming compensation due under Sections 55 and 73 of the Contract Act are unenforceable, is a plausible view [See: M/s Simplex Concrete Piles v. Union of India (Supra)].
35. In view of the above, DMRC�s petition is unmerited and is liable to be dismissed.
36. CRTG has also filed a petition [OMP(COMM) No.39/2020] under Section 34 of the A&C Act assailing the impugned award. However, during the course of the proceedings, CRTG had confined its challenge to the impugned award to the amounts awarded against Claim No.2. CRTG does not assail the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal to accept that it is entitled to compensation for excavating hard rock; CRTG�s grievance is limited to the measure of the said damages. In the aforesaid context, CRTG has also filed an application under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act praying that the present proceeding be adjourned to enable the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings and correct the errors with regard to quantity of excavation of hard rock as well as the rate at which the compensation for hard rock was required to be computed.
37. CRTG�s application is premised on the basis that the Arbitral Tribunal had erred in computing the quantity of rock excavated and the rate applied for computing the said compensation. The Arbitral Tribunal had accepted the quantity of rocks excavated as 51,747.764 cubic meters. CRTV claims that the said quantification is, ex facie, erroneous as it only takes into account the rock excavated from Grid 17 to Grid 25 and does not include the rocks excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 17. It submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had relied upon the quantification as provided by CRTG on 17.05.2019. However, the said information was provided to the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to a query raised by the Arbitral Tribunal regarding excavation carried out from Grid 17 to Grid 25. Since this was the only information sought by the Arbitral Tribunal, there was no occasion for CRTG to provide further information regarding rock excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 17. According to CRTG, it had already provided the primary evidence of actual quantity excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 17.
38. Mr. Nakul Dewan, learned senior counsel appearing for CRTG also referred to certain documents filed along with its Claim Statements (annexed with page 2502 and 2506 of the documents filed along with the petition). The said document at page 2502 contained a tabular statement indicating that total quantity of rock excavated from chainage 33065.99 to 33270 as 26,716.959 cubic meters. The document annexed with page 2506 indicates that a total quantity of 7698.811 cubic meters of rock was excavated from chainage 33065.99 to 33330. Mr. Dewan earnestly contended that the Arbitral Tribunal overlooked the primary evidence and therefore, ought to be given an opportunity to re-examine the same.
39. In addition, he contended that the Arbitral Tribunal had grossly erred in estimating the rate at which such excavation was required to be paid on the basis of its own experience as well as enquiries regarding recent trend of rates received in tenders by various construction agencies. The Arbitral Tribunal had applied CPWD DSR 2012 rates for determining the compensation payable for excavation. Mr. Dewan contended that this was wholly erroneous as neither party had either in their pleadings or during their submissions referred to CPWD DSR 2012.
40. He submitted that after the conclusion of final arguments, DMRC had referred to CPWD DSR 2012 rates in its e-mail dated 05.10.2019. Immediately, on receipt of the said letter, CRTG had filed an application before the Arbitral Tribunal for clarification regarding CPWD DSR 2012 rates. In this context, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an order dated 10.10.2019 terming the said e-mail dated 05.10.2019 as unsolicited and had clarified that it was not entertaining the same. Consequently, CRTG�s application was also rejected on 23.10.2019. He submitted that DMRC had once again attempted to refer to CPWD DSR 2012 rates in another e-mail dated 24.10.2019 and consequently, CRTG had once again filed an application. By an order dated 26.10.2019, the Arbitral Tribunal had dismissed both the applications (application by DMRC�s as well as CRTG�s application). He submitted that having rejected DMRC�s attempt to refer to CPWD DSR 2012 rates, there was no occasion for the Arbitral Tribunal to rely on the same. He contended that these errors could be cured by the Arbitral Tribunal by re-examining the evidence and thus, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Section 34(4) of the A&C Act. Mr. Dewan, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.: (2019) 20 SCC 1 and Som Datt Builders Ltd. v. State of Kerala: (2009) 10 SCC 259 as well as the decision of this Court in UEM India Pvt. Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd.: 2019 SCC OnLine Delhi 7167.
41. Before proceeding to address CRTG�s challenge regarding the award of Claim No.2, it will be relevant to refer to the impugned award in so far as it deals with the issue of calculation of the quantities as well as the applicable rates. The relevant extract of the impugned award is as under:
2.2.3.24 Quantity of rock Excavation:

Claimant has submitted the details of quantity of rock excavation in Hazrat Nizamuddin station area and Cut and Cover areas where the bottom up approach had to be followed. The quantities given at every submission stage are different than the earlier. These submissions have been tabulated as above.

2.2.3.25 It is noted that not only the total quantities are varying, the reference points as also the basic data like rock levels, heights, width and lengths are also varying from submission to submission. Nonetheless, the Claimant in his written synopsis of arguments, submitted after the conclusion of the proceedings, has submitted as under in para 11 of the claim no 2:

�11. The Claimant has placed on record voluminous documents on 17.5.2019 (Vol. I of I showing the actual quantity of rock excavated chainage-wise and amount claimed, Tender Drawing of utility Plan(s) dt.31.1.2012, Borelog data / drawings – both pre-tender and post tender, Bore-Hole Location, G.I. Investigation and site Plan, which demonstrate the additional cost, which Claimant had to incur on account of change in methodology, and time and cost overrun.�

The documents submitted on 17.5.2019 mentioned as �NZM Station (Approx. Qty. of rock excavation between bottom of base slab & rock top level) alongwith NZM C&C2 Part 1 and 2� show a total quantity of 54946.538 cum as actually executed. While the AT insisted for joint verification of actual rock quantity, the Claimant submitted another set of calculations to the Respondent vide letter no. 6962 dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure E of Claimant�s submissions to AT dated 31.07.2019) requesting the respondent to verify the same and forward to the AT with copy to claimant. The documents submitted vide letter dated 26.07.2019 had a total quantity of rock excavation as 74283.982 cum. as mentioned above.

2.2.3.26 Rock formation profile based on bore hole data conducted by Claimant and submitted at C-179 and C-180 with statement of claims shows that rocky strata starts at Chainage 32900 which roughly matches with chainage of Grid 14. However, the actual long section showing actual levels for station portion submitted by Claimant on 17/05/2019 shows that rock formation started at chainage 32987.115 near Grid 17. This drawing is signed by DMRC officials as well as Claimant’s representative and covers Grid 17 to 25, therefore found to be more authentic. Moreover, as seen in this very case borehole data could be misleading and quantities of excavation cannot be worked out on it�s basis. Quantity based upon actual levels (initial and final) taken during excavation form the only sound and acceptable basis for calculation of quantity of excavation as per sound engineering practice.

2.2.3.27 The respondent DMRC vide their letter dated 07.08.2019 checked the calculations submitted by the claimant and submitted to AT their version where they calculated the rock excavation quantity as 51747.764 cum. based upon the same cross sections. Copy of this submission of respondent was also provided to the claimant.

2.2.3.28 It is thus seen that Claimant has been changing his stand about quantity of rock excavation with every submission. AT has considered the matter in its entirety and come to the conclusion that quantity of 51747.764 cu.m. is only acceptable. This is based upon Claimant�s own submission dated 17/05/2019 containing long section of station area showing initial and final levels which is signed by representatives of both parties and two long sections of Cut and Cover portion signed by claimant�s representative only and as checked and corrected by Respondent.�

42. It is material to note that CRTG could not produce any document whereby DMRC had accepted the quantity of rock excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 17. The documents relied upon by CRTG in support of its contention that it had submitted the actual quantity excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 17 also does not further its case. The data in the said two documents, which are annexed at page 2502 and 2506 of the documents filed by CRTG, are overlapping. One of the documents shows the quantity excavated from chainage 33065.99 to 33270. Whilst the other (at page 2506) shows the excavation of rock from chainage 33068.599 to 33330. There is also another document filed by CRTG (page 2504 of the documents filed with the petition) which was not adverted to. The same indicates that additional rock excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 16 as 532.347 cubic meters and from Grid 16 to Grid 17 as 269.729 cubic meters. The total quantity of rocks excavated from Grid 14 to Grid 25 is reflected as 2275.993 cubic meters.
43. There are two findings of the Arbitral Tribunal that are material. First, that although documents showed that rocky strata started at chainage 32900, which corresponds to Grid 14, however, the long sections showing actual levels indicate that the rock formation started at chainage 32987.115, which is near Grid 17. Second, the Arbitral Tribunal held that it would not be apposite to rely on data regarding estimation of rock on the basis of Bore Holes but on actual rock excavated on joint measurement. CRTG is unable to show any joint measurement of quantities of rock excavated other than as referred to by the Arbitral Tribunal. DMRC was asked to verify certain calculations and the Arbitral Tribunal had noted that by its letter dated 07.08.2019, it had calculated the rock excavated as 51747.764 cubic meters. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the approach of the Arbitral Tribunal to estimate the quantities of excavated rock on the basis of joint measurements and not on the basis of Bore Hole data. Essentially, the Arbitral Tribunal has not accepted CRTG�s claim for excavated rock in Grid 14 to Grid 17 for want of quality evidence to support it. The Arbitral Tribunal was of the view that rock excavated prior to chainage 32987.115 was not significant. And, relatively minor quantities of rock would not warrant any additional compensation.
44. Insofar as the rates for excavation of rock are concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal did not accept CRTG�s claim. The Arbitral Tribunal had found that the total costs of excavation would work out to approximately ?3.2 crores and CRTG�s claim for an additional cost of ?89.95 crores was highly exaggerated. Nonetheless, the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded a sum of ?1,48,53,917/- in favour of CRTG by computing it on the basis of the difference in the rates of excavation of soil and rock as specified in CPWD DSR 2012. The relevant extract of the impugned award reads as under:
�2.2.3.29 Rates: The total claim and the rates adopted by the claimant are highly inflated and imaginative. This is evident from the followings basic facts:

A. The BOQ of the contract documents at pages 000849 to 000857 provides the lump sum value of general items, stations, tunneling and cut and cover in Schedule A. The payment milestones for various stages of broad components of work also have been given in Schedule-A. It may not provide an exact cost of the items but it is a reasonable assessment of their cost and the same method has been followed elsewhere in this case. If we want to calculate the total cost of the excavation in the length under dispute, we can do it as under:

a. For station area, the Subhead A2, item 1 & 2 provide for the entire cost of the excavation including different kinds of support system in all kind of soil/rock including sheet piles/diaphram wall, rock anchors dewatering etc. complete and the cost component is 4% +2% =6% of the cost of each station which is equal to (6/100) (0.39*910.12)/4=5.324 Cr. The length of station involving rock is 123.898 m (As per C-91 of SOC Claim 2). The proportionate cost works out to 5.324 123.898/265-2.489 Crore.

b. For cut and cover area, the Subhead A3, item 3 provide for the complete cost of the construction as 12% of the subhead which works out to 0.55*910.12*0.12= 60.07 Cr. The Cut and cover length on the project is 1.1 km. Therefore, per meter cost of complete construction of cut and cover portion would be approx. Rs 5.46 lakhs. Applying the same principle as for the station area, the cost of excavation including different kinds of support system in all kind of soil/rock including sheet piles/diaphragm wall, rock anchors dewatering etc complete for a length of 222.844 (Ref C-92 of SOC Claim 2) would be approximately Rs (6/100)(5.46*222.844) =73 Lakhs.

c. Thus, the approx. total cost of excavation plus support system of the entire length involved in station and C&C area works out to Approx Rs. 3.219 Cr, Say Rs. 3.2 crores.

d. The above is a very quick and rough assessment based on terms of payment, but considered reasonable for empirical comparisons. If the total cost of this component of the work itself is around Rs. 3.2 crores, the claim for additional cost due to encountering rock and working bottom up instead of top down has to be much less than this and not Rs. 87.89 cr + Rs 2.06Cr = Rs 89.95 cr by any flight of wild imagination. Claimant’s claim of Rs.87.89 Cr. + Rs 2.06 cr, as compensation for additional cost is almost equal to the total cost of construction of one station itself. This AT finds it to be highly exaggerated and absurd.

e. The highly inflated rate for rock excavation shows the tendency of exaggerating the claim amount. Rate for excavation in rock has been claimed as Rs.5890.00 and Rs.6090.00 per Cu.M. In the analysis of rates given by Claimant on Page C-85, basic rate has been taken as Rs.4700.00 claimed to be on the basis of work order given by claimant to sub-contractor but without giving any basis or breakup of costs. The claimed rate is found to be unrealistically high. It has been assessed by AT based on its own experience as well as enquiries regarding recent trend of rates received in tenders by various construction agencies e.g. CPWD, FWD, Delhi etc. that present rate for excavation of rock requiring blasting is not more than Rs.600/- per Cu.M. Schedule-�C� of the agreement provides for payment of items of work not covered under Schedules �A� and �B� at CPWD DSR 2012 rates for civil works enhanced by the percentage quoted against this Schedule which is 31.40% CPWD-DSR 2012 rate for rock excavation (requiring blasting) (Item No.2.7.2) is Rs.347.80 per Cu.M. and DSR 2012 Rate for excavation over areas in all kinds of soil (Item No.2.6.1) is Rs.129.35 per Cu.M. Claimant has claimed that he assumed soil excavation in this portion while putting in Lump Sum Tender as per the bore hole data provided by Respondent. Therefore, his entitlement for compensation has to be based upon difference of the two rates is. Rs.218.45 per Cu.M. enhanced by 31.40 % as per provision under Schedule C of the contract and it works out to Rs.287.04 per Cu.M. The corresponding amount works out to 51748 x 287.04 = Rs.1,48,53,917/-

f. Regarding other components of the claimed amount, these are all part of estimated cost. No evidence of actual expenditure incurred against the same have been placed by Claimant before this AT.

g. Claimant has also failed to show as to how he has been put to additional cost in adopting bottom up construction in place of top down construction. No document to show the comparison of cost of original proposal vis-�-vis changed proposal with their costing has been brought up. In the opinion of this AT as per experience of the members in the field, apart from the additional cost of excavation of rock instead of soils, there would not be any major variation total of temporary structures and protective measures required during construction e.g. Sheet Piles, Rock anchors, Diaphragm walls etc. In fact, construction by adopting bottom up approach is much simpler and economical, in general including design costs. Moreover, this is a lump sum tender based on contractor’s design, the choice of method of design and construction rests with the contractor only. Claimant is, therefore, entitled to only additional cost of excavation in rock instead of soil due to unforeseen conditions under clause 4.23 as a result of materially wrong data provided in tender documents.

h. Apart from above, the claimed amount includes estimated cost of time overrun of 12 months amounting to Rs.11.11 crores. However, the Claimant failed to substantiate the claim with any reliable evidence and in terms of the contract.

i. In consideration of various aspects of the matter brought out as above, this AT has come to the conclusion that Claimant will be adequately compensated for the unforeseen physical conditions encountered by him, in the form of rock instead of soil met with during excavation at Hazrat Nizamuddin Station and Cut and Cover Tunnel area, on payment of Rs.1,48,53,917/- under clause 4.23 of the contract.�

45. Having found that the rates claimed by CRTG were highly exaggerated, it was not necessary for the Arbitral Tribunal to compute any amount against CRTG�s claim. The Arbitral Tribunal could well reject CRTG�s claim on that ground.
46. CRTG�s contention that the rates as claimed were not disputed by DMRC is erroneous. DMRC had denied the claim. It emphasized that the claim for excavation of hard rock was not sustainable given the express terms of the Contract. However, it had denied the claim in its entirety. The onus to prove that CRTG was entitled to damages as well as its measure rested on CRTG. It is apparent from a plain reading of the impugned award that the Arbitral Tribunal had not accepted CRTG�s claim as to the measure of damages. The rates at which excavation of hard rock was required to be computed was not accepted. In the circumstances, if CRTG�s contention that the Arbitral Tribunal had erred in applying CPWD DSR 2012 is accepted; the same would imply that the award of compensation against Claim No.2 is required to be set aside. There is no scope to adjourn the proceedings to enable the Arbitral Tribunal to resume arbitral proceedings.
47. Having stated above, this Court is of the view that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal to curtail CRTG�s claim on the basis of CPWD DSR 2012 cannot be faulted. It is always open for the Arbitral Tribunal to determine the damages on the basis of its assessment.
48. The scope of Section 34(4) of the A&C Act is limited. It does not extend to remanding the matter to Arbitral Tribunal for reviewing a finding returned after appreciation of evidence or for a decision afresh.
49. In I-Pay Clearing Services (P) Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd.,(2022) 3 SCC 121, the Supreme Court has held that Section 34(4) of the Act can be resorted to record reasons for the finding already given in the award or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning of the award. But recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C is not available to review findings, which are not based on evidence or where there are no findings on contentious issues. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:
37.�In our view, Section 34(4) of the Act can be resorted to record reasons on the finding already given in the award or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning of the award. There is a difference between �finding� and �reasons� as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in the judgment in�ITO�v.�Murlidhar Bhagwan Das�[ITO�v.�Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, AIR 1965 SC 342] . It is clear from the aforesaid judgment that �finding is a decision on an issue�. Further, in the judgment in�J. Ashoka�v.�University of Agricultural Sciences�[J. Ashoka�v.�University of Agricultural Sciences, (2017) 2 SCC 609 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 517] , this Court has held that �reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions�.
** ** ** **
40.�Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. The discretionary power conferred under Section 34(4) of the Act, is to be exercised where there is inadequate reasoning or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning, in support of the findings which are already recorded in the award.
41.�Under the guise of additional reasons and filling up the gaps in the reasoning, no award can be remitted to the arbitrator, where there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award. If there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award or if any findings are recorded ignoring the material evidence on record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside the award itself. Under the guise of either additional reasons or filling up the gaps in the reasoning, the power conferred on the Court cannot be relegated to the arbitrator. In absence of any finding on contentious issue, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award
42.�A harmonious reading of Sections 31, 34(1), 34(2-A) and 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, make it clear that in appropriate cases, on the request made by a party, Court can give an opportunity to the arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings for giving reasons or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning in support of a finding, which is already rendered in the award. But at the same time, when it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings.

[ underlined for emphasis]

50. In Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd (Supra), the Supreme Court had observed as under:

�37.�In case of absence of reasoning the utility has been provided under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act to cure such defects. When there is complete perversity in the reasoning then only it can be challenged under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The power vested under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act to cure defects can be utilised in cases where the arbitral award does not provide any reasoning or if the award has some gap in the reasoning or otherwise and that can be cured so as to avoid a challenge based on the aforesaid curable defects under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, in this case such remand to the Tribunal would not be beneficial as this case has taken more than 25 years for its adjudication. It is in this state of affairs that we lament that the purpose of arbitration as an effective and expeditious forum itself stands effaced.�

51. The conclusion of the Arbitral Tribunal that (i) the quantities of excavation of rock could not be worked out on the basis of Bore Hole data and was required to be measured upon actual level taken during excavation and (ii) the rates for such excavation as claimed by CRTG were exaggerated and unacceptable, cannot be set aside for a further review by the Arbitral Tribunal. The scope of Section 34(4) of the A&C Act does not extend to calling upon the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the proceedings to re-appreciate the evidence and re-adjudicate any dispute.
52. In any view, as stated above, this Court is unable to accept that the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal vitiate the impugned award as patently illegal on the face of the award.
53. In view of the above, the above captioned petitions as well as application filed by CRTG under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act are rejected. All pending applications are also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J
APRIL 25, 2022
�gsr�/v

O.M.P. (COMM) Nos.603/2020 & 39/2020 Page 40 of 41