Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s. Bharat Enterprise (Civil Appeal Nos. 3441-3442 of 2015)
Background
A contractor (respondent) completed repair work for the Union government in 2002 and submitted a final bill, but payment was delayed by over a year. During that delay the contractor raised additional claims "under protest," which the government contract's Clauses 65/65-A said were waived once a final bill was submitted. The dispute went to arbitration; the arbitrator rejected the government's objection that these clauses barred the new claims and awarded the contractor money on several of them. A District Judge set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but the High Court, in appeal under Section 37, restored the award, reasoning the clauses were unfair given the delay in payment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an arbitrator cannot travel outside the boundaries of the contract, and Clauses 65/65-A validly barred new claims after the final bill unless the final bill itself was shown to be the product of duress, coercion or another vitiating factor, which the arbitrator had never found here. On strict application of the clauses, the government's objection should have succeeded. However, taking a pragmatic view of the long delay in paying the final bill and the modest sums involved, and invoking the Court's discretion under Article 136, the Bench did not simply restore the earlier order rejecting the claims; instead it set aside the High Court's judgment but directed the government to pay the contractor a lump sum of Rs. 3 lakh in full and final settlement.
Lesson Learnt
Clauses in a contract barring "further claims" after a final bill are legally binding on both parties and the arbitrator unless the final bill itself is shown to have been extracted through duress or a similar vitiating factor; courts exercising discretionary appellate jurisdiction may still mould the ultimate relief to achieve practical justice even after finding the strict legal position favours one side.