AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of appellants State and submits, award dated 11th December, 2005 was challenged by his client in the Court below. Said Court by judgment dated 15th December, 2011 rejected the challenge. Therefore, his client is in appeal.
He draws attention to paragraph 11 and the sub-paragraphs in dealing with claim no.1 on loss of overheads. He submits, there is no dispute that there was delay of 45 months in completing the project, not attributable to respondent. He places sub-paragraph 11.2 and submits, no evidence was laid for purpose of the arbitrator to ascertain the loss, to award general damages on account of loss of overheads. He relies on view taken by a learned Single Judge in the High Court of Bombay as reflected in judgment dated 6th February, 2012 (Shah Jagshi Jethabhai v. J.N. Construction) available at 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 154, paragraphs 15, 19, 20 and 21. Court notices, in paragraph-20, judgment of the Supreme Court relied on in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Kadbrotee Engineering Industries reported in 2011(2) Mh. L.J. was relied upon. The judgment is Ramnath International Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2007 SC 509.
On query from Court Mr. Patnaik submits, though there was no award on escalation, claim of idle charges stood awarded.
Mr. Rajan, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent. He submits, this point was not taken as a ground in the memo nor in the Court below.
The point urged in appeal is a point of law. The point is whether there can be award of damages without proof of loss. Since this point was not taken as a ground in the memo, it is herein recorded and respondent given opportunity to take notice of case and make submissions on adjourned date.
List on 27th September, 2022 as prayed for by Mr. Rajan.
..................................................