Authority: Calcutta High Court, Commercial Appellate Division (Original Side)

Order Date: July 15, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: ITD‑ITD CEM Joint Venture (appellant) vs. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (respondent).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal (APOT/103/2026) against the judgment and order dated May 8 2026 of a Single Judge who dismissed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant.
  • Background: The parties entered into a design‑and‑construction contract on 9 Feb 2010 for the underground metro section from Central Station to Subhas Sarovar, valued at Rs 815,66,63,700 with a stipulated completion period of 217 weeks (by 8 Apr 2014). A written agreement was executed on 10 Mar 2010.
  • Contract Variations: Four extensions of time were granted (first request 21 Jan 2013, last request 7 Apr 2018). An amendment order dated 8 Nov 2016 altered the contract price to Rs 1,279.81 crore (original price Rs 908.63 crore; deletion of Rs 250.68 crore from Sealdah‑Central Station segment; Phase I revised to Rs 657.95 crore, Phase II to Rs 621.86 crore).
  • Arbitration: Disputes were referred to an Arbitral Tribunal, which held six sittings and issued its award on 21 Nov 2019.
  • Appellant’s Claims (four heads):

1. Unrecovered additional establishment cost – Rs 177,77,50,000.

2. Loss due to arbitrary reduction of overhead from 20 % to 50 % – Rs 1,68,24,647.

3. Loss of interest on excess recovery and prolonged retention – Rs 27,93,38,134.

4. Lost interest due to wrongful recovery on mobilisation advance – Rs 1,52,62,207.

Total claimed: Rs 208,91,74,988.

  • Respondent’s Counter‑claim: Undue claim of overhead profit and variation works amounting to Rs 1,49,73,213.
  • Award Findings: The Tribunal rejected claims 1 and 3 of the appellant and the respondent’s counter‑claim; it allowed claims 2 and 4.
  • Grounds for Rejection (Claim 1): Reliance on Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 of the General Conditions, Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, and the fact that the claim was unsubstantiated and time‑barred.
  • Grounds for Rejection (Claim 3): The original contract price remained Rs 908.63 crore until the November 2016 variation; the retention amount was converted to a bank guarantee by mutual consent; thus no interest liability.
  • Legal Submissions: The appellant argued mis‑interpretation of contract clauses (8.3, 8.4.1, 12, 25) and reliance on Supreme Court precedents (OPG Power Generation, Ssangyong, DMRC, etc.). The respondent contended that extensions were unqualified, the appellant had accepted the revised price, and no right to claim damages existed.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Bench examined the scope of Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, citing authorities such as OPG Power Generation, Ssangyong Engg. & Construction, DMRC, K.N. Sathyapalan, Assam SEB, Suraj Infrastructure, McDermott International, K. Marappan, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp., and Jan De Nul Dredging.
  • It held that the Arbitral Tribunal’s interpretations were plausible and not perverse.
  • Courts under Sections 34/37 are not appellate bodies and should not substitute their view where the award is supported by the record.
  • Single Judge’s Order: The Single Judge correctly exercised the parameters of Section 34, finding no infirmity in the award.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal APOT 103 of 2026 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
  • The arbitration award dated 21 Nov 2019 stands, confirming the rejection of the appellant’s claims on additional establishment cost and interest, and upholding the allowance of claims 2 and 4.

Topics: Arbitration Award, Infrastructure Contract Dispute