Introduction
In its decision dated 31 January 2025, in C&C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd., the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment dealt with the enforceability of a contractual clause barring claims for damages due to delay by the employer, and examined the doctrine of estoppel by conduct in commercial arbitration. It offers a significant precedent on the binding nature of liability-limitation clauses in government and PSU contracts.
1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The dispute originated from an agreement dated 28 June 2012 between the appellant, C&C Constructions Ltd., and the respondent, IRCON International Ltd., for constructing five Road Over Bridges (ROBs) in Rajasthan. Delays occurred in execution, allegedly attributable to the respondent. The work concerning LC-200 and LC-233 was withdrawn and is not the subject of the appeal.
The appellant requested extensions of time for LC-89, LC-228, and LC-108, and was granted the same—some with and some without penalty. Notably, the appellant provided written undertakings not to claim damages beyond price escalation.
Despite this, the appellant raised claims amounting to ₹44.11 crores. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected all claims based on Clause 49.5 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which barred such damages. The High Court dismissed challenges under both Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The Court addressed the following key legal issues:
- Whether Clause 49.5 of the GCC, which bars claims for damages arising from employer-caused delays, is enforceable.
- Whether the appellant is estopped from challenging Clause 49.5 due to its conduct, including written undertakings.
- Whether the scope of judicial interference under Section 37 permits revisiting the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision.
- Whether the clause is void under Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (C&C Constructions Ltd.)
- Argued that Clause 49.5 violated public policy and was hit by the doctrine of patent illegality.
- Claimed that exclusion of damages under Clause 49.5 was contrary to Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act.
- Alleged the clause was waived by the respondent through earlier correspondences.
- Cited Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Asian Techs Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that contractual clauses cannot override statutory rights under the Contract Act.
Respondent (IRCON International Ltd.)
- Argued that Clause 49.5 was a valid limitation of liability clause and did not conflict with statutory provisions.
- Cited ONGC v. Wig Brothers Builders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. to support enforceability of such clauses.
- Emphasized that the appellant repeatedly invoked Clause 49.5 and gave binding undertakings not to claim damages beyond escalation.
- Asserted that the claim was belated and made two years after the last extension.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
a. Interpretation of Clause 49.5
The Supreme Court found that Clause 49.5 clearly excluded the contractor’s entitlement to compensation for delays caused by the employer. The clause expressly provided that delays “shall in no way entitle the contractor to damages or compensation”.
b. Estoppel by Conduct
The Court held that the appellant’s repeated reliance on Clause 49.5 for extension of time and written undertakings not to claim further damages estopped it from later challenging the clause’s validity. The conduct amounted to an irreversible election under contract law principles.
c. Waiver Argument Rejected
The appellant’s argument that the respondent waived Clause 49.5 was rejected outright. The Court noted that merely discussing possible claims for financial burden in correspondence did not amount to a waiver. Furthermore, no detailed claim was submitted when invited.
d. Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the argument that Clause 49.5 violated Sections 23 or 28 since it was raised for the first time before it and not before either the arbitral tribunal or the lower courts.
e. Scope under Section 37
Reiterating precedents such as Larsen Air Conditioning v. Union of India and Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project, the Court underscored that Section 37 offers no broader review than Section 34. Only patent illegality or denial of natural justice would justify interference—none of which were present in this case.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the validity and enforceability of Clause 49.5 of the GCC. It concluded that:
- The clause validly limited liability and did not offend any statutory provision.
- The appellant was estopped from challenging the clause due to its own representations and undertakings.
- No ground existed under Section 34 or Section 37 to set aside the arbitral award.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
FAQs:
1. Can a contractor claim damages if the employer delays the project?
Not always. If the contract contains a clause barring such claims—like Clause 49.5 in this case—and the contractor has acted on it, courts may enforce the clause.
2. What is the legal scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act?
Section 37 provides a limited right of appeal and mirrors the narrow scope of Section 34. Courts can interfere only for patent illegality or denial of natural justice.
3. What is estoppel by conduct in contract law?
Estoppel by conduct prevents a party from challenging a position it previously accepted or acted upon, especially when the other party has relied on that position.
4. Are limitation of liability clauses enforceable in India?
Yes. If clearly worded and mutually agreed, such clauses are generally upheld unless they violate statutory provisions or public policy.
5. Can new legal arguments be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court?
No. Legal issues such as constitutional or statutory validity of contract clauses must be raised at the earliest. Raising them for the first time in appeal is impermissible.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.