( 2026:HHC:31621 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No. 81 of 2025 Reserved on:17.07.2026 Decided on: 30.07.2026 Uploaded on: 30.07.2026 Yashwant Chhajta ..…Petitioner Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another .....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aman, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge: By way of this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner-Claimant has assailed Award dated 29.04.2015, passed by the learned Arbitrator-Cum- Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HP PWD, Solan, in terms whereof, the Claim filed by the present petitioner has been partly allowed by the learned Arbitrator in the following terms:- “15. My thoughtful and considered award on the basis of written statements, proceedings 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2026:HHC:31621 ) of the oral hearings and the documents/evidence placed on record is as under:- Sr. No. Description of ClaimAmount Claimed Amount awarded Remarks 1. Claim No.1: Loss of profit on account of illegal closure of work Rs.78,39,208/- Rs.28,35,502/- 2. Claim No.2: Loss of over heads and profit on account of prolongation: Rs.2,12,37,615/- Rs.9,63,120/- 3. Claim No. 3: Interest for the pre-award period @ 12% and post award period till realization of payment @ 18% p.a. Pre-pendentelite and Pendente lite period:- Simple interest @6% P.A. on amount of Rs. 28,35,502/-for the period of two and half years from date of reference to date of award. Post Pendente lite period:- Simple interest @ 8% P.A. for the period three months after the date of award to the actual date of its realization. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner-Claimant was awarded the work of construction of New Bus Stand at Rohru, i.e., “(SH: C/o Building Portion i/c WS an SI, Site 3( 2026:HHC:31621 ) Development Approach Road Including Bridge Agreement No. 13 of 2007- 08”. The work was awarded for a sum of Rs.5,92,67,764/-. The same was to be completed within a period of one year, to be reckoned from 15th day of the letter of award. A dispute arose from the said award, which led to the filing of the Claim Petition. 3. In brief, the contention of the Claimant before the learned Arbitrator was that the respondents could not perform their part of the reciprocal promises, in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. According to the Claimant, the respondents were not able to hand over the clear and unhindered site to the petitioner for the execution of the work. It was further the stand of the Claimant that the work of construction of approach road, bridge and parking lot on the land in question had not even commenced. There was a High Tension Electricity Line passing over the site, qua which, the Department was required to take immediate necessary action, but it failed to do so. According to the Claimant, another hindrance faced by the him was with regard to a Sewerage Line, which was passing through the land where the Bus Stand was to be constructed and despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to take any action to get the said Sewerage Line shifted. The Chief Engineer concerned visited the site on 31.10.2007 and proposed a change in the level of building, without realizing that the drawings had been received by the petitioner-Claimant after considerable delay. It was further the case of the 4( 2026:HHC:31621 ) Claimant that he had mobilized its entire labour and machinery so that the work could be executed within the stipulated time, but subsequently it transpired that the Department was getting the work done through the Himachal Pradesh Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority, Shimla, which was not having the requisite funds for the execution of said work. According to the Claimant, the agreement for the construction of New Bus-Stand at Rohru was executed between him and the respondent- Department and he was not having any concern with the Himachal Pradesh Bus-Stand Development and Management Authority. According to the Claimant, even during the subsistence of the contract in issue, the respondents had pleaded that the work was not to be executed on account of shortage of funds and simultaneously they also floated tenders for the same work on two occasions. The agreement was ordered to be closed by the respondents on 09.02.2012, after a lapse of almost five years from the date of its award. With these grievances, the petitioner approached the learned Arbitrator, in terms of the Claim Petition. 4. The Claim was opposed by the Department, which denied all the issues raised in the Claim Petition by the Claimant. 5. The following Claims were preferred by the Claimant before the learned Arbitrator:- “Claim No. 1:- Loss of profit on account of illegal closure of work: Rs. 78,39,208/- 5( 2026:HHC:31621 ) Claim No. 2:- Loss of over heads and profit on account of prolongation: Rs.2,12,37,615/- Claim No. 3: Interest for the pre-award period @12% and post award period till realization of payment @18% p.a.” 6. No Counter Claim was filed by the respondents. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence which was led by the parties before the learned Arbitrator, the Claim was partly allowed by the learned Arbitrator in terms of the Award, already mentioned hereinabove. The Award passed by the learned Arbitrator has not been assailed by the Department, however, the same stands assailed by the Claimant. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Claimant has argued that the Award being against the Public Policy, is not sustainable in the law. He submitted that the learned Arbitrator erred in not appreciating the evidence placed on record by the petitioner-Claimant while awarding only an amount of Rs.28,35,502/- in his favour under Claim No. 1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the very fact that certain amount awarded in favour of the petitioner-Claimant under Claim No. 1 demonstrates that the respondents were remiss as far as the performance on their part of the contract is concerned. He submitted that this is also evident from the findings returned by the learned Arbitrator while deciding Claim No. 1. He submitted that despite their being ample material on record produced by 6( 2026:HHC:31621 ) the Claimant to demonstrate that the material had been brought to the site, learned Arbitrator has erred in granting only an amount of Rs.28,35,502/-, as a value of the material, solely relying upon letter dated 18.09.2014, issued by respondent No. 2 during the course of arbitration proceedings. 9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court and the Award ordinarily has to be respected and not to be interfered, because per se there is no infirmity in the Award, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Deputy Advocate General also argued that the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, though not assailed by the State, if is liable to be set aside, then the same has to go in its entirety. She submitted that the Claim No. 1 has been decided by the learned Arbitrator by assigning the reasoning and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. No other point was urged. 10. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner- Claimant as also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator. 11. The circumstances which led to the filing of the Claim Petition have already been discussed by me hereinabove. The Claims preferred by the petitioner-Claimant as also the work awarded in favour of the Claimant have also been quoted by me hereinabove. Learned Senior 7( 2026:HHC:31621 ) Counsel for the petitioner-Claimant has primarily argued that the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator with regard to Claim No. 1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the learned Arbitrator has not taken into consideration the entire material which was placed on record by the Claimant to demonstrate the loss of material, tools, plant and machinery, which were deployed by him, on account of delay in the commencement and execution of the work in question, which was totally attributable to the respondent-Department. 12. Now, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that while assessing the amount payable to the Claimant under Claim No. 2, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the learned Arbitrator, i.e., the Income Tax Returns. A perusal of the Award demonstrates that there is a reference to the Annexures, which were filed by the Claimant to prove his case, but the findings which have been returned while deciding Claim No. 2, contain no specific reference to the said Annexures filed by the Claimant, which justify the contention of the petitioner-Claimant that the documents placed by the petitioner-Claimant before the learned Arbitrator were not taken into consideration while deciding Claim No. 2. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited case (supra) in Para-23 has been pleased to hold as under:- 8( 2026:HHC:31621 ) “23. Ordinarily, when the completion of a contract is delayed and the contractor claims that s/he has suffered a loss arising from depletion of her/his income from the job and hence turnover of her/his business, and also for the overheads in the form of workforce expenses which could have been deployed in other contracts, the claims to bear any persuasion before the arbitrator or a court of law, the builder/contractor has to prove that there was other work available that he would have secured if not for the delay, by producing invitations to tender which was declined due to insufficient capacity to undertake other work. The same may also be proven from the books of accounts to demonstrate a drop in turnover and establish that this result is from the particular delay rather than from extraneous causes. If loss of turnover resulting from delay is not established, it is merely a delay in receipt of money, and as such, the builder/contractor is only entitled to interest on the capital employed and not the profit, which should be paid.” 13. Thus, a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it amply clear that it is the duty of the learned Arbitrator to go through the documents which are placed on record by the Claimant in support of the contentions qua losses suffered. 9( 2026:HHC:31621 ) 14. This Court is not suggesting that the petitioner-Claimant ought to have been compensated by the learned Arbitrator in the manner as was pleaded by the Claimant before the learned Arbitrator, but what this Court is observing is that it was the duty of the learned Arbitrator to have had gone through the material, which was placed before it by the Claimant and after discussing the same, findings should have been returned qua Claim No. 2. The same having not been done by the learned Arbitrator in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited case (supra) renders the impugned Award passed by the learned Arbitrator to be bad in law, being against the Public Policy of the Government as also the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said subject. 15. Accordingly, in light of the above discussions, this petition is allowed and impugned Award dated 29.04.2015, passed by the learned Arbitrator-Cum-Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HP PWD, Solan is set aside. The parties are left to have recourse as per law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2026 (bhupender)