Delhi HC Clarifies Overheads & PVA in Arbitration.

⚖️Case study: State Bank of India v. K.R. Anand 📋Case No.: O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2024 &I.A. 2596/2024.

📅 Decided on: 15.09.2026

📌 Factual Background

• SBI awarded a contract (₹19.81 Cr) to K.R. Anand in 2013 for construction of 76 officer flats at Noida.
• Completion was due by Jan 2015 but delayed; three extensions were granted (two with Price Variation Adjustment (PVA), third without).
• Work completed Jan 2016; disputes arose over delay attribution and payments.
• Arbitration led to an award of ₹1.42 Cr in favour of the contractor. SBI challenged under Section 34, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

🧩Legal Issues

1. Claim No.1 – Overhead Expenditure: Whether damages could be awarded using Emden formula without proof of actual loss.
2. Claim No.3 – PVA: Whether contractor entitled to PVA for third extension granted without monetary benefit.
3. Claim No.7 – Interest on delayed RA bills/final bill: Whether interest payable on running bills under the Interest Act, 1978.
4. Claim No.10 – Interest on delayed refund of security deposit: Whether arbitrator could award interest despite GCC clause barring it.

🗣️ Contentions

• SBI:
  • Award contradictory; no proof of overhead losses.
  • Third extension explicitly without PVA.
  • RA bills were advances, not debts; no interest payable.
  • GCC barred interest on security deposits.
• K.R. Anand:
  • Evidence of expenses produced; Emden formula valid.
  • Architect admitted efforts to secure PVA; SBI responsible for delay.
  • Clause 37 mandated timely payment; delays proved.
  • Clause 6.2 not pressed before arbitrator; cannot be raised under Section 34.

📚 Case Laws Discussed

• Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136 – Proof of loss essential under Sec. 73 Contract Act.
• State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction (P) Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 1 – Award without evidence unsustainable.
• Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366 – Formula not substitute for proof of loss.
• Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. v. THDC, (2019) 17 SCC 786 – Arbitrator cannot override contractual bar on interest.
• Garg Builders v. BHEL, (2022) 11 SCC 697 – Agreement ousts arbitrator’s jurisdiction on interest.

👩‍⚖️ Observations of Delhi HC

• Claim No.1: Award based solely on Emden formula without proof of actual loss → patent illegality.
• Claim No.3: Reliance on architect’s cross‑examination insufficient; documentary evidence showed extension without PVA → unsustainable.
• Claim No.7: Arbitrator rightly awarded interest based on contractual stipulation (Clause 37) → upheld.
• Claim No.10: Clause 6.2 barred interest; arbitrator erred in awarding it → set aside.

✅ Conclusion
Delhi HC partly set aside the arbitral award. Claims 1, 3 & 10 were struck down; Claim 7 (interest on delayed RA/final bill) upheld. Court reiterated that proof of actual loss is sine qua non under Sec. 73 Contract Act and contractual bars on interest prevail over arbitrator’s discretion.

---

🔑 Key Takeaways

• Evidence of loss is mandatory; formulas like Emden/Hudson cannot replace proof.
• Contractual clauses (e.g., bar on interest, PVA conditions) override arbitral discretion.
• Section 34 review is limited but courts will intervene where awards suffer from patent illegality.
• Contractors must reserve rights when accepting extensions to preserve claims.

---

🔖 Hashtags

#Arbitration #DelhiHighCourt #ConstructionLaw #ContractAct #Section34 #LegalCaseStudy #SBI #InfrastructureDisputes

📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇