2026:MHC:563Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Reserved on

03.2.2026

Delivered on:

09.2.2026

Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

Arbitration O.P. (Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

The Chairman,

Chennai Port Trust,

No.1, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-1. ...Petitioner

Vs

Mr.A.Manicavassalou,

Proprietor, M/s.A.

Manicavassalou, registered

engineering contractor, No.10,

Vellavari Street, Mariya Tower,

II Floor, Carmel Convent,

Muthialpet, Puducherry-3. ...Respondent

PETITION under Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the award dated

06.4.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

For Petitioner : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi,

Standing Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.D.Vivekanandan

1/29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act)

against the award dated 06.4.2022 passed by the learned Arbitrator

to the extent the claims made by the respondent/claimant were

allowed.

2. Heard both.

3. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner issued a tender dated 24.2.2013 for

restoration of the damaged revetment structure at east of east quay

due to cyclones ‘Thane’ and ‘Nilam’. The respondent submitted his

tender and was declared as a successful bidder, pursuant to which,

the parties entered into an agreement on 03.10.2013. The work

involved as many as 11 kinds of work and the respondent took over

the site and commenced the work on 18.10.2013. As per the

agreement, the time for completion of work was 10 months from the

date of taking over the site and it was expected to be completed on

17.8.2014. However, the work was completed only on 24.9.2016

2/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

after extension of time was granted by the petitioner. Thus, there

was a delay of 768 days in completing the work.

(ii) The petitioner sought to recover the liquidated damages

from the respondent and withheld a sum of Rs.49,19,960/- towards

the same. Apart from that, the respondent also had other claims

against the petitioner. The trigger notice was issued and a petition

was filed before this Court in O.P.No.763 of 2018 by the respondent.

Pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in the said original

petition, the learned Arbitrator was appointed by this Court.

(iii) In the claim statement filed before the learned Arbitrator,

the respondent/claimant made the following claims against the

petitioner:

“A. To repay/return the liquidated

damages to an extent of Rs.49,19,960/- (Rupees

Forty Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Nine

Hundred and Sixty Only) wrongfully deducted

from the claimant together with 18% interest

per annum as mentioned in Annexure – A;

B. To return the Service Tax of a sum of

Rs.7,23,754/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty

Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four

Only) deducted contrary to the agreement from

the claimant together with 18% interest per

3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

annum as mentioned in Annexure – B;

C. To return a sum of Rs.2,18,836/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Eight

Hundred and Thirty Six Only) wrongly deducted

towards the room rent charges from the

claimant together with 18% interest per annum

as mentioned in Annexure – C;

D. To pay a sum of Rs.1,06,60,000/-

(Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs and Sixty

Thousand Only) towards the rental charges of

the machinery viz., Excavator Ex 220 and a

container for the extended period as mentioned

in Annexure – D;

E. To pay a sum of Rs.29,38,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs and Thirty Eight

Thousand Only) towards the salaries paid to the

employees for the extended period as mentioned

in Annexure – E;

F. To pay a sum of Rs.36,48,147.40/-

(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand

Hundred and Forty Seven and Forty Paise Only)

towards the escalation of materials procurement

cost incurred during the extended period to the

claimant as mentioned in Annexure – F;

G. To pay a sum of Rs.2,54,002/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand and Two Only)

towards the renewal of insurance charges which

was time and again renewed by the claimant as

mentioned in Annexure G;

4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

H. To pay a sum of Rs.1,03,423.30/-

(Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Four

Hundred and Twenty Three and Thirty Paise

Only) towards the renewal of bank guarantee

charges which was time and again renewed by

the claimant as mentioned in Annexure – H';

I. To pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh and Twenty Thousand Only) towards

the rental cost for the container which was

wrongly retained by the respondent even after

the completion of work (from 24.9.2017 to

24.9.2018) together with 18% interest per

annum as mentioned in Annexure-I;

J. To pay a sum of Rs.49,25,543.52/-

(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand

Five Hundred and Forty Three and Fifty Two

paise Only) towards the rental cost for the

Machinery Excavator 220 which was wrongly

retained by the respondent even after the

completion of work (from 24.9.2016 to

24.9.2017) together with 18% interest per

annum as mentioned in Annexure – J;

K. To reimburse/repay a sum of

Rs.9,63,900/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Three

Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) towards the

rent of genset utilized for electricity purpose

incurred by the claimant together with 18%

interest per annum as mentioned in Annexure K;

5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

L. To pay a sum of Rs.29,875/- (Rupees

Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and

Seventy Five Only) towards the interest for the

delayed payment of the final bill as mentioned in

Annexure – L;

M. To pay a sum of Rs.41,43,841/-

(Rupees Forty One Lakhs Forty Three Thousand

Eight Hundred and Forty One Only) towards the

incentive/bonus to the claimant;

N. To a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees

One Crore Only) towards damages incurred for

the loss of business to the claimant from

17.8.2014 till 24.9.2017; and

O. To pay the cost of the Arbitration.”

(iv) In turn, the petitioner filed a statement of defence and

took a stand that the delay in completion of work was attributable

only to the respondent/claimant and that the agreement itself

contemplated a pre-estimated sum as liquidated damages for the

delay in completion of the work. That apart, the petitioner denied

the various claims made by the respondent/claimant.

(v) The learned Arbitrator, after considering the pleadings

on either side, framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the extension of the contract

period for the work was approved/consented by

the respondent as claimed in the statement of

6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

claim?

2. Who is responsible for the delay in

completion of the contract? Whether the

claimant or the respondent?

3. Whether the respondent impliedly

approved the extension of the time to carry on

the work by the claimant?

4. Whether the respondent is liable to pay

the claims listed out in para 73-A to O of the

statement of claim?

5. To what relief the parties are entitled

to?”

(vi) The respondent/claimant examined C.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.90 were marked. The petitioner examined R.W.1 and marked

Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.41.

(vii) The learned Arbitrator, on considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, passed

an award in the following terms:

“a) the respondent is liable to re-pay/

return the liquidated damages to an extent of

Rs.49,19,960/- along with interest which works

out to Rs.20,38,332/- for different periods as

calculated in paragraph 140-142. Therefore, as

far as the claim covered by para 73A is

concerned, the liquidated damages to be

released and that is payable by the respondent

7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

to the claimant along with interest to be

calculated at the rate of 14.3% works out to a

sum of Rs.69,58,792/- (Rs.49,19,960 +

Rs.20,38,832), which the respondent is directed

to pay within 6 weeks from the date of passing

of this award along with interest calculated at

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim

statement i.e., from 21.3.2019 till the date of

payment. If the respondent fails to effect the

payment as directed above, the respondent shall

be liable to pay penal interest, in addition,

calculated at the rate of 2% p.a. from the date

of expiry of the 6 weeks' time fixed under this

award till the date of actual payment;

b) the respondent is liable to pay the

Service Tax amount deducted, namely

Rs.7,23,754/- and the interest on that amount,

which works out to Rs.2,99,207/-, the total claim

comes to Rs.10,22,961/-. The respondent is

therefore directed to pay the said sum of

Rs.10,22,961/- along with interest at the rate of

6% p.a. from the date of claim statement and

effect the payment within 6 weeks from the date

of pronouncement of this award. If the

respondent fails to effect the payment as

directed within the said 6 weeks' time, the

respondent will be liable to pay penal interest, in

addition, calculated at the rate of 2% p.a. from

the date of expiry of the 6 weeks' time till the

8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

date of payment;

c) the respondent is liable to pay the sum

of Rs.2,18,836/-, the room rent charges wrongly

deducted along with interest which works out to

Rs.70,154/-, in all a total sum of Rs.2,88,990.

Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay

the said sum of Rs.2,88,990/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of

claim statement and effect the payment within 6

weeks from the date of pronouncement of this

award. If the respondent fails to effect the

payment as directed within the said period of 6

weeks, the respondent will be liable to pay penal

interest, in addition, calculated at the rate of 2%

p.a. from the date of expiry of the 6 weeks' time

till the date of payment;

d) the respondent is liable to pay the sum

of Rs.9,63,900/- towards rental charges for the

genset hired by the claimant by way of

reimbursement along with interest to be

calculated at the rate of 14.3% p.a. for the

period 10.10.2013 to 03.10.2016, totalling to a

sum of Rs.13,75,147.27. The respondent is

directed to make the said payment of

Rs.9,63,900/- along with interest calculated at

the rate of 14.3% p.a. for the above said period

and effect the said payment within six weeks

from the date of the passing of this award failing

which the respondent would be liable to further

9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

pay a penal interest at the rate of 2% p.a. over

and above 14.3% from the expiry of the said six

weeks period till the date of actual payment; and

e) the respondent is liable to pay the sum

of Rs.29,875/- by way of interest for the delayed

payment of final bill along with interest to be

calculated at the rate of 14.3% p.a. from the

date of filing of the statement of claim i.e.,

21.3.2019 within 6 weeks from the date of

pronouncement of this award, failing which, the

respondent would be liable to pay interest at the

rate of 2% p.a from the date of expiry of the 6

weeks period directed in this Award till the date

of payment.”

(viii) The other claims made by the respondent/claimant were

rejected. Aggrieved by that portion of the award passed by the

learned Arbitrator granting the relief to the respondent/claimant, the

above petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner

focused his arguments only in so far as the issue of refund of

liquidated damages ordered by the learned Arbitrator was

concerned.

10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

5. It was submitted on the side of the petitioner that the

respondent/claimant was expected to complete the work by

17.8.2014 whereas the work was completed only on 24.9.2016 with

a delay of 786 days, that Clause 49.1 of the General Conditions of

Contract provides that the petitioner would be entitled to levy

liquidated damages for the delay, that therefore, considering the

delay that was attributable to the respondent/claimant and after

condoning 18 days towards inclement weather conditions, the

liquidated damages were confined to 750 days, that the learned

Arbitrator, after rendering a finding that the respondent/claimant

was solely responsible for the delay, ordered for the refund of the

liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.49,19,960/- with interest,

which is contrary to law and that consequently, this finding suffers

from patent illegality.

6. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance upon

the latest common order passed by me in M/s.Prime Store, Rep.

by its Partner Mr.S.Kaarthi & others Vs. Sugam Vanijya

Holdings Private Limited & others [Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) Nos.

11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

257 of 2021 & 209 of 2022 dated 08.10.2025].

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/claimant submitted as follows:

The learned Arbitrator had taken into consideration the

relevant clause in the General Conditions of Contract namely Clause

49.1 and found that the petitioner had not duly followed the

procedure provided under the said clause in a proper perspective.

The learned Arbitrator found that the liquidated damages retained

by the petitioner were not reasonable and it was not a genuine pre-

estimate of damages. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator came to the

conclusion that the action of the petitioner in deducting the

liquidated damages was in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development

Authority [reported in 2015 (4) SCC 136] . In the absence of the

petitioner proving the actual loss sustained by them, the petitioner

would not be entitled to retain the amount towards liquidated

damages. Accordingly, the learned counsel justified the award

passed by the learned Arbitrator and sought for dismissal of this

petition.

12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the

learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available

on record and more particularly the impugned award passed by the

learned Arbitrator.

9. Since the entire focus was bestowed only on the issue of

retention of amount by the petitioner towards the liquidated

damages, it will suffice to render a finding on this issue.

10. Before dealing with this issue, it will be relevant to extract

Clauses 1.10 and 49 of the General Conditions of Contract as

hereunder:

“Clause 1.10:

The Contract Price is the price stated in

the Letter of Acceptance and thereafter as

adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the

contract.”

…………..

“Clause 49: Liquidated Damages

49.1 In case of delay in completion of the

contract, liquid damages (L.D) may be levied at

the rate of 1/2% of the contract value per week

of delay or part thereof, subject to a maximum

13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

of 10 per cent of the contract price.

(i) The owner, if satisfied, that the works

can be completed by the contractor within a

reasonable time after the specified time for

completion, may allow further extension of time

at its discretion with or without the levy of L.D.

In the event of extension granted being with

L.D, the owner will be entitled without prejudice

to any other right or remedy available in that

behalf, to recover from the contractor as agreed

damages equivalent to half per cent (1/2%) of

the contract value of the works for each week or

part of the week subject to the ceiling defined in

Sub-Clause-49.1;

(ii) The owner, if not satisfied that the

works can be completed by the contractor and in

the event of failure on the part of the contractor

to complete work within further extension of

time allowed as aforesaid, shall be entitled,

without prejudice to any other right or remedy

available in that behalf, to rescind the contract;

(iiii) The owner, if not satisfied with the

progress of the contract and in the event of

failure of the contractor to recoup the delays in

the mutually agreed time frame, shall be entitled

to terminate the contract;

(iv) In the event of such termination of

the contract as described in Clauses-49.1(ii) &

49.1(iii) or both the owner shall be entitled to

14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

cover L.D up to ten per cent (10%) of the

contract value and forfeit the security deposit

made by the contractor besides getting the work

completed by other means at the risk and cost of

the contractor;

(v) In case part/portions of the work can

be commissioned and Port operates the portion

for commercial purposes, the rate of L.D will be

restricted to the uncompleted value of work, the

maximum LD being on the entire contract

value.”

11. The learned Arbitrator, while dealing with issue No.2,

rendered a finding that the delay in the completion of the contract

was attributable only to the respondent/claimant. After having

rendered such a finding, the learned Arbitrator went into the issue of

the levy of liquidated damages by the petitioner. The learned

Arbitrator, while interpreting Clause 49 of the agreement, rendered

a finding that five sub-clauses (i to v) of Clause 49.1 must be read

in consonance with the opening clause in Clause 49.1 and not in

isolation. Having found so, the learned Arbitrator rendered a finding

that the Authority must establish that there was a genuine

application of mind before any action was contemplated for levy of

15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

liquidated damages and must satisfy itself that such a levy was

imperative. Hence, the Authority must exercise the discretion at the

very threshold of satisfaction being arrived at that the works

completed by the contractor were within a reasonable time after the

time specified.

12. The learned Arbitrator thereafter proceeded to refer

various exhibits namely the correspondences that had taken place

between the parties and also the meeting that was held between the

parties and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was extending

the time so as to enable the respondent/claimant to complete the

work and did not choose to terminate the contract under Clause 58.

The learned Arbitrator also took into consideration Ex.A.24, which

was a show cause notice issued to the respondent/claimant and for

this purpose, the respondent/claimant also gave a reply and on

receipt of the same, the petitioner did not proceed further with the

show cause notice. Ultimately, the work completion certificate

marked as Ex.A.36 was taken into consideration wherein the

petitioner had acknowledged that the respondent/claimant had

executed the work to the complete satisfaction even though they

16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

had taken more time to complete the work.

13. In the entire process, only in the letter dated 25.1.2016

marked as Ex.A.25, the petitioner mentioned about the levy of

liquidated damages. This is nearly after one year and five months

from 17.8.2014. The petitioner informed the respondent/claimant

that they levied the liquidated damages to the tune of

Rs.28,47,989/- and that the balance recovery amount of

Rs.19,74,572/- would be withheld and considered for release

depending upon the performance of the respondent/claimant.

Thereafter, on 29.11.2016, the petitioner expressed its decision to

affirm the levy of liquidated damages and informed the respondent/

claimant that a sum of Rs.39,91,535/- has already been recovered

and that the balance amount would be recovered from the final bill.

14. The learned Arbitrator thereafter took into consideration a

very important aspect, which ultimately lead to denying the

retention of liquidated damages. The learned Arbitrator found that

the contract value was fixed at Rs.4,82,15,608/- whereas the entire

work was completed though with some delay, for a lesser value of

17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

Rs.4,14,54,674/-. Thus, as a matter of fact, the learned Arbitrator

found that the petitioner certainly did not suffer any loss or damage

even though the delay in the completion of work was attributed to

the respondent/claimant and that on the other hand, the petitioner

was able to save to the tune of Rs.67,60,934/- in this project.

15. The learned Arbitrator also took into consideration the fact

that the levy of liquidated damages resorted to by the petitioner was

for the total value of contract work by fixing the figure at

Rs.4,91,99,600/- and 10% of this amount was calculated and

appropriated as the liquidated damages to the tune of

Rs.49,19,960/-. However, even as per Ex.A.56, the total value of

work completed by the respondent/claimant was Rs.4,14,38,412/-

and in spite of the same, the petitioner imposed levy on the value

that was quoted by the respondent/claimant in his bid and that such

levy was neither on the contract price of Rs.4,82,15,608/- nor on

the actual value of execution to the tune of Rs.4,14,38,412/-.

Hence, the learned Arbitrator reached a conclusion that the very

levy of the liquidated damages was in violation of Clause 1.10 read

with Clause 49.1 of the General Conditions of Contract.

18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

16. Keeping these facts in mind, the learned Arbitrator applied

the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath

Associates and came to the conclusion that withholding the amount

of Rs.49,19,960/- was illegal and hence, directed this amount to be

released along with interest. While fixing the interest, the learned

Arbitrator once again assigned reasons.

17. The decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel

for the petitioner in M/s.Prime Store, Rep. by its Partner

Mr.S.Kaarthi & others will have no application to the facts of the

present case. Firstly, the learned Arbitrator rendered a factual

finding that the petitioner, in fact, did not incur any loss and on the

contrary, was able to save a sum of Rs.67.60 lakhs in this particular

project. The learned Arbitrator also found that the liquidated

damages levied by the petitioner were unreasonable since such a

levy was made on the value of the bid amount whereas what was

permissible under the contract was the value of the contract price

after its final adjustment.

19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

18. In the decision in M/s.Prime Store, Rep. by its Partner

Mr.S.Kaarthi & others, I have held that in a case covered by

Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act and the parties have agreed to

a pre-estimated sum named in the contract towards the liquidated

damages and also the Court finds that such pre-determination is a

reasonable sum and due to the breach of contract, one party has

suffered a legal injury i.e loss or damage, it is not necessary that

the party must once again prove the actual loss or damage. This law

was further confirmed while dismissing Rev.A.Nos.1 and 2 of

2026 by a common order dated 03.2.2026.

19. The decision of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High

Court relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner

in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. G.R.

Engineering Private Limited [Commercial Arbitration Petition

No.984 of 2018 dated 18.6.2025] will also not apply to the facts

of the present case.

20. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not

find any perversity or patent illegality in the findings rendered by

20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

the learned Arbitrator on the issue of liquidated damages. In so far

as the other claims awarded in favour of the respondent/claimant

are concerned, no arguments were put forth by the learned

Standing Counsel for the petitioner and in any event, the learned

Arbitrator rendered findings by assigning sufficient reasons towards

each claim that was awarded in favour of the respondent/claimant

and they certainly do not suffer from perversity or patent illegality.

Further, the case in hand does not fall within any of the eight pigeon

holes available under Section 34 of the Act.

21. In the result, the above original petition stands dismissed.

No costs.

09.2.2026

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

RS

21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J

RS

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

09.2.2026

22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 12.2.2026

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

Arbitration O.P. (Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

The Chairman,

Chennai Port Trust,

No.1, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-1. ...Petitioner

Vs

Mr.A.Manicavassalou,

Proprietor, M/s.A.

Manicavassalou, registered

engineering contractor, No.10,

Vellavari Street, Mariya Tower,

II Floor, Carmel Convent,

Muthialpet, Puducherry-3. ...Respondent

PETITION under Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the award dated

06.4.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

For Petitioner : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi,

Standing Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.D.Vivekanandan

ORDER

After the final order in the above petition was pronounced by

23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

this Court on 09.2.2026, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the petitioner submitted that at paragraph 20 of the order dated

09.2.2026, this Court recorded as if no arguments were put forth

with respect to the other grounds and also as if the only issue that

was argued pertained to liquidated damages. He further submitted

that the objections raised regarding the other grounds were filed by

way of short notes and that the same were not taken into

consideration.

2. At paragraph 20 of the order dated 09.2.2026, this Court

did render a finding to the effect that even in so far as the other

findings rendered by the learned Arbitrator were concerned, there

are no grounds made out to interfere with the award. Therefore, it is

not as if this Court only focussed on the issue of liquidated damages

and did not consider the other grounds. What was recorded was that

at the time of oral arguments, the main focus of arguments on the

side of the petitioner touched upon only the liquidated damages.

3. In the light of the above clarification sought for by the

learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not

24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

want to give an impression that the other grounds raised were not

considered. Therefore, the following reasoning for rejecting the

other grounds are given in this clarificatory order:

(i) The first issue pertains to the interest awarded by the

learned Arbitrator for the liquidated damages withheld by the

petitioner. The learned Arbitrator placed reliance upon Clauses 43.3,

43.6 and 43.7 of the agreement and calculated interest at the rate

of 14.3%, which worked out to Rs.20,38,832/- and added the same

to the liquidated damages to arrive at a total sum of Rs.69,58,792/-

and this amount was directed to be paid within six weeks from the

date of passing the award along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of the claim statement till the date of

payment. It was also made clear that if the payment was not made

within the time stipulated, it would further carry a penal interest at

the rate of 2% per annum from the date of expiry of six weeks’ time

fixed by the learned Arbitrator. This finding rendered by the learned

Arbitrator does not suffer from any perversity.

(ii) The next issue pertains to the relief granted on service tax

on the liquidated damages withheld for certain bills to the total tune

of Rs.7,23,754/-. For this purpose, Clause 43 of Section 3 of Ex.A.4

25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

series was relied upon and the petitioner was directed to pay a total

sum of Rs.10,22,961/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of the claim statement within a period of six

weeks. The above issue also pertains to the liquidated damages,

which was confirmed and hence, was more consequential to the

issue of liquidated damages that was found in favour of the

respondent/claimant.

(iii) The third issue pertains to the relief granted for deduction

of room rent. The learned Arbitrator found that under Ex.R.5,

nothing was stated as to the payment of any rent for the usage of

the site for office purpose and even Clause 25 of Section 5 of Ex.A.4

series did not specify any payment of rent while granting

permission. Apart from that, Clause 2 of Section 5 of Part I, which

provided for general description of work and other conditions, made

it clear that no rental charges would be levied. In view of the same,

the learned Arbitrator rendered a finding that there was no

justification for the petitioner to deduct the rental charges.

Therefore, that claim was ordered in favour of the respondent/

claimant along with interest. The finding rendered by the learned

Arbitrator certainly does not suffer from any perversity.

26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

(iv) The fourth issue pertains to the relief of rent for the

genset hired by the respondent/claimant by way of reimbursement.

The learned Arbitrator found from Ex.A.74 and Ex.A.75 series that

the respondent/claimant hired genset and utilized the same between

the period from 18.10.2013 to 03.10.2016 since electricity was not

provided by the petitioner. Accordingly, a sum was calculated and

awarded and the same does not require the interference of this

Court.

(v) The last issue pertains to the payment of interest for the

delayed payment of final bill. The learned Arbitrator found that the

petitioner had already deducted the liquidated damages and in spite

of the same, a further deduction was made towards the entire final

bill amount. Thus, it was factually found that there was excess

deduction of Rs.98,399/- and hence, the same was interfered and a

sum of Rs.29,875/- was directed to be paid by way of interest for

the delayed payment of the final bill. This finding also does not

suffer from any perversity or patent illegality.

12.2.2026

27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

RS

28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J

RS

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.119 of 2023

12.2.2026

29/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis