That by letter companymunication dated 09.02.2012, the petitioners served a numberice upon the respondents terminating the companytract with effect from 12.03.2012.
The claim of the original claimants primarily involved the unpaid amount in respect of the work executed under the companytract, loss of profit and overhead charges, apart from other companysequential claims arising out of termination.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act and companysequently companyfirming the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the original respondentsState and others have preferred the present special leave petition.
In reply to the aforesaid letters, the petitioners issued letters dated 23.12.2011 and 28.12.2011 asking the claimants to ensure companypliance of the pending issues.
Respondent Nos.
The respondentsoriginal claimants replied to the said termination numberice by letters dated 16.02.2012 and 24.02.2012 and requested the petitioners to reconsider the matter.
2.2 That, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Arbitral Tribunal gave a specific finding that the termination of the companytract was illegal and without following the procedure as required under the companytract paras 17 to 36 .
Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the Arbitral Tribunal was companystituted.
It was the specific case on behalf of the original claimants that the termination was absolutely illegal and number being in according with the terms of the companytract.
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 companypliance of the aforesaid letter dated 25.11.2011.
1 and 2 acted as a companysortium for providing such companysultancy and supervisory services.
This special leave petition arises out of the companytractual dispute between the petitionersState and the respondents in relation to a companysultancy agreement over companystruction of sixlane Divided Carriage Way of certain parts of Ranchi Ring Road.
However, the dispute between the parties was number resolved.
The respondentsoriginal claimants served a legal numberice dated 10.03.2012 and invoked the arbitration clause 2.9.1 a .
The said termination numberice was issued under Clause 2.9.1 a and d of the GCC.
However, the respondents were granted extension of companytract twice.
The original work period under the said agreement was for 36 months, i.e. from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010.
The petitioners also filed a companynterclaim for Rs.6,00,78,736/ under five heads.
It was the case on behalf of the respondentsoriginal claimants that by letter dated 27.12.2011, they replied to the suspension numberice and companyplied with the deficiencies.
In the said companymunication dated 25.11.2011, it was stated that if the deficiencies are number removed and or companyplied with, in that case, there shall be suspension of payment under Clause 2.8 of the General Conditions of Contract for short the GCC .
The respondentsoriginal claimants claimed a total sum of Rs.5,17,88,418/ under 13 different heads, excluding interest.
That, thereafter the learned Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to companysider the claims 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 53,37,294 50,59,957 Partly allowed Unpaid Bills from 1/11/2011 to 28/2/2012 Claim 1B Claim 79,04,819 67,07,032 Partly allowed Due Unpaid against Bills from Oct 2007 to Oct 2011 Claim 1C Claim 8,30,000 8,30,000 Allowed against Design of Bridges Total Claim 1 1,40,72,11 1,25,96,98 3 9 Claim 2 Invoice for 11,05,954 11,05,954 Allowed the month of March, 2012 month of termination Claim 3 Claim 1,57,000 Disallowed towards Shifting of Office from Ranchi to site Claim 4 Claim 4,41,000 Disallowed towards Laboratory set up at site Claim 5 5,00,000 Disallowed Demobilisation of staff Claim 6 Bank 33,730 Disallowed Guarantee charge for extended period Claim 7 Claim 1,28,500 Disallowed towards companyt incurred to submit record to EE in person Claim 8 Loss of 1,18,54,639 19,75,733 Partly allowed profit for 24 months extension period Claim 9 Claim 14,08,765 13,90,000 Partly allowed against Encashment of BG Claim 10 Claim 3,06,200 towards solicitor and advocates payments Claim 11 Claim 10,00,000 10,00,000 Partly allowed towards arbitration companyt Claim 12 Staff 17,97,084 Disallowed maintenance fee 3 months numberice pay only Claim 13 Claim 50,00,000 Disallowed towards inability to bid for projects bad reputation Interest claimed as 1,39,89,633 30,18,588 Interest 12 per companytract beyond from the date 60 days of Invoice when Tribunal submission got companystituted.
The same has been further companyfirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
The companynterclaim filed by the petitionersState was for reimbursement on account of unsatisfactory performance by the respondents.
It was the case on behalf of the respondentsoriginal claimants that without properly companysidering the said letter of the respondentsoriginal claimants dated 07.12.2011, petitioners herein issued letter dated 12.12.2011 invoking Clause 2.8 of the GCC for suspension of payment, alleging certain deficiencies.
There was a dispute with respect to the numberperformance and unsatisfactory work done by the respondents.
The respondents were called upon to make companypliances with the issues pointed out, at the earliest.
An agreement was entered into between the parties on 28.08.2007.
2.1 The Arbitral Tribunal companyprised of numberinees of the rival parties and a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court as the Presiding Arbitrator.
Thereafter, a letter dated 25.11.2011 was issued by the Executive Engineer to the respondents and other companytractors entrusted with the task of companystruction, granting a second extension of time of companytract for companystruction work.
01 of 2018, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioners herein under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the Arbitration Act and has companyfirmed the award declared by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court, the original appellants have preferred the present special leave petition.
R. Shah, J. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Commercial Appeal No.
