Claim,Particulars,Claimed amount,,
Claim No. 1,"Work done but not paid against
the Work Order No. 137
including earnest money/
security deposit/ performance
guarantee","Â Rs. 26,68,750/-",,
Claim No. 2,"Extra items executed under
Work Order No.137 within
periphery of banquet areas but
not paid as per bill dated
05.01.2013 C-44A","Â Rs. 17,07,000/-",,
Claim No. 3,"Extra items executed under
Work Order No.137 but not paid
within banquet halls as per bill
dated 13.11.2013 C-58 and C-
58A","Â Rs. 8,50,340/-",,
Claim No. 4,"WCT deducted under Work
Order No.137 and 189 but TDS
not issued","Â Rs. 8,50,340/-",,
Claim No. 5,"Loss of profit on balance
unexecuted value of Work
Order No. 137 @15%","Â Rs. 1,72,500/-",,
Claim No. 6,"Work done but not paid against
the Work Order No. 189
including earnest money/
security deposit/ performance
guarantee","Â Rs. 28,64,123.75/-",,
Claim No. 7,"Loss of profit on balance
unexecuted value of Work
Order No. 189 @15%","Â Rs. 4,39,668.45/-",,
Claim No. 8,"Loss of hire charges of
shuttering other materials
suffered due to retention and
detention thereof from
September 2013 to April 2014
@ Rs. 25,000/- per month and
non-return thereof","Â Rs. 4,50,000/-",,
Counter Claim No. 1,"Refund of Rs. 53, 26,158/-
which is the excess collected
over and above the work
actually executed by
AMMTYS along with
interest @12% from 01.11.2013","Â Rs. 53, 26,158/-
along with interest
@12% from 01.11.2013",,
Counter Claim No. 2,Claim of damages for delay,"Â Rs. 81,38,143/-",,
Counter Claim No. 3,"Claim for damages towards
abandonment of work","Â Rs. 96,05,698/-",,
Counter Claim No. 4,"Claim towards loss of revenue
and loss of business
opportunities","Â Rs. 2,00,00,000/-",,
Counter Claim No. 5,"Compound Interest on
sum due for the period as
determined",As determined,,
Counter Claim No. 6,"Legal costs incurred towards
arbitration",As determined,,
1,"Complete Interior work execution
of Banquet, pre function, Banquet
entrance lobby, Male female
 washrooms, passage towards
kerala restaurant but excluding
stone work. Work should strictly
be carried out as per drawings and
detaisl from base work to final
finishing as per drawing except list
of items to be supplied by THE
PARK. Work to be complete in all
respects and to be approved by
Project manager.","Lum
Sum",Lum sum,11500000
,"Total (Inclusive of all taxes
and
duties)",,,11500000
(Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Only),,,,
28. The contention that the impugned award is contrary to the express terms of the contract inasmuch as the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded value for,,,,
extra items executed by the respondent, that were in addition to the work as initially agreed, is also unpersuasive. ITMA had relied upon Clause 10 of",,,,
the Work Order, which reads as under:",,,,
“10. VARIATIONS IN QUANTITIES:,,,,
This is a lump sum order for executing the works as per annexure A, any variations in the rates due to changes in quantities is considered as included",,,,
in ordered rate. Nothing would be paid extra for any hidden/seen/unseen items.â€,,,,
29. The Arbitral Tribunal had found that the said Clause is not applicable as the extra items in respect of which the subject claims were made were,,,,
not merely variations in the quantities but additional items that were not covered within the scope of works as initially contemplated. In terms of the,,,,
Work Order, the respondent was obliged to perform the work as per the drawings furnished to it. Obviously, the same has a clear nexus with the",,,,
BoQ. However, the Arbitral Tribunal accepted that there was a variation in the scope of work inasmuch as the additional items and/or items of",,,,
changed specifications were required to be executed. These items cannot sensu stricto be considered as changes in the quantities but were in the,,,,
nature of a ‘deviation’. The view of the Arbitral Tribunal is certainly a plausible view and it is difficult to accept that the same is perverse or,,,,
patently erroneous. The controversy is clearly within the realm of interpretation of the terms of the Work Order and, was well within the jurisdiction of",,,,
the Arbitral Tribunal.,,,,
30. In the alternative, it was contended on behalf of ITMA that no payments for deviation could be made in terms of Clause 18 of the Work order",,,,
unless the same had ITMA’s prior approval. It was further contended that ITMA had not accorded its prior approval to execution of the extra,,,,
items for which Claim nos. 2 and 3 were raised by the respondent.,,,,
31. Clause 18 of the Work Order reads as under:,,,,
“18. Deviation,,,,
Any unauthorized deviation from the job by you will attract penalty through deduction from your bills. Any deviation/or changes by the consultant in,,,,
the assigned job should have our prior approval falling which no extra payment will be allowed at any cost.â€,,,,
32. The Tribunal had examined the aforesaid contention and had found that the execution of the extra items did in fact have ITMA’s approval.,,,,
33. The Arbitral Tribunal had also noted that there was material that established that the Consultant was also acting on behalf of ITMA. The Work,,,,
Order was signed by the Consultant on behalf of ITMA. The respondent was directed to do the work of extra items and also submit its quotes, which",,,,
it did. ITMA was also aware that the works, as directed, had been executed. It had raised no protest that extra items did not have its approval. The",,,,
Arbitral Tribunal also noted that all the instructions with regard to the Work Orders had been issued by the Consultant. Therefore, the Arbitral",,,,
Tribunal liberally interpreted the words “prior approval†as used in Clause 18 of the Work Order.,,,,
34. It is important to note that the Work Order did not require that prior approval of ITMA for any deviation should be in writing. It merely required,,,,
the deviation to have the prior approval of ITMA. Concededly, all instructions with regard to execution of the works were issued by the Consultant.",,,,
The record also indicates that some of the emails regarding execution of the works were marked to ITMA. ITMA did not at any stage object to the,,,,
execution of the extra items. It is also clear that there is no dispute with respect to execution of the extra items as claimed by respondent. In the given,,,,
circumstances, the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that the approval of ITMA for extra items could be inferred, cannot be stated to be perverse or",,,,
patently erroneous.,,,,
35. The contention that the impugned award is unreasoned and falls foul of the provisions of Section 31 of the A&C Act, is without any merit. A plain",,,,
reading of the impugned award indicates that the reasons are articulated and the Arbitral Tribunal has provided sufficient reasons for the conclusions,,,,
drawn by it. Merely because the contentions of the parties were extensively noted does not in any manner indicate that the findings rendered by the,,,,
Arbitral Tribunal are, unreasoned.",,,,
36. It was also contended on behalf of ITMA that the award for extra items was without any evidence or basis. This contention is also without merit,,,,
as the respondent had submitted rates for extra items and the same are mentioned in the communications (e-mails) sent by the respondent. The,,,,
respondent had thereafter, raised an invoice on the said basis. The invoiced amount has been awarded to the respondent. There was no dispute that",,,,
the value of the invoice conformed to the rates quoted by the respondent. It is also material to indicate that the rates for extra items were not disputed,,,,
by ITMA at the material time.,,,,
37. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The petition is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed. All",,,,
pending applications are also disposed of.,,,,
