Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court

05 February 2025 4:58 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court has dismissed a contractor’s appeal seeking damages for employer-caused delays, holding that the limitation of liability clause (Clause 49.5) in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) was enforceable. The Court ruled that the contractor, having repeatedly invoked Clause 49.5 to obtain extensions of time without protest and having expressly waived claims beyond escalation, was estopped from challenging its validity.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, observed: "The appellant acted upon Clause 49.5 and sought extensions of time on multiple occasions. Having accepted the stipulation, it cannot later claim damages for delay. By its conduct, the appellant is estopped from challenging the validity of Clause 49.5."

An agreement dated June 28, 2012, was entered into between M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. (appellant) and IRCON International Ltd. (respondent) for constructing five Road Over Bridges (ROBs) in Rajasthan. Due to alleged delays attributable to IRCON, the appellant sought extensions of time, which were granted under Clause 49.5 of the GCC. However, the contractor later sought damages for delays, which IRCON rejected, citing the limitation of liability clause.

The arbitral tribunal rejected the claims summarily under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that Clause 49.5 explicitly barred such claims. The Delhi High Court upheld this decision under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the High Court's ruling.

Enforceability of Clause 49.5

The Supreme Court examined Clause 49.5 of the GCC, which provided: "In the event of any failure or delay by the Employer/Engineer in fulfilling his obligations under the contract, then such failure or delay 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 case, the Engineer shall grant such extension or extensions of time to complete the work, as in his opinion is/are reasonable."

The Court ruled that the appellant had accepted this clause when seeking extensions of time and had even submitted written undertakings that it would not claim anything beyond escalation. The Court noted: "The appellant explicitly undertook on January 14, 2015, that it would not make any claim other than escalation for delays in completion. Two years later, it sought damages, contradicting its own solemn undertaking. Such conduct estops the appellant from challenging Clause 49.5."

Public Policy and Contractual Freedom

The appellant argued that Clause 49.5 violated Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, by restricting legal recourse and being against public policy. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating:

"Limitation of liability clauses are recognized under Indian law and have been upheld in previous rulings of this Court. Such clauses do not violate public policy unless they completely oust the jurisdiction of courts, which is not the case here."

Further, the Court pointed out that the appellant had not raised this argument before the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, it could not be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.

Scope of Judicial Review Under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act The Supreme Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in arbitration matters, citing Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Co. v. Union of India, (2023) 15 SCC 472 and Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, (2023) 9 SCC 85. The Court held:

"Interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is even narrower than under Section 34. Courts cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of an award but must only ascertain whether the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction."

Since Clause 49.5 unambiguously barred the claims, the arbitral tribunal was correct in rejecting them at the threshold under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act. The Delhi High Court, in upholding this view, did not exceed its jurisdiction under Section 37.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded: "Considering the limited scope of interference, as laid down by this Court, we find absolutely no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed."

Date of Decision: January 31, 2025

Similar News