“It is a fact that though the Claimant could not complete the work in time, the delay was not attributable to the Claimant. A plain reading of the above provisions makes it clear that, no incentive will be granted if the commissioning of the Project is not completed within 6 months of issuance of the LOA and there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the language of the contract, in this regard. The contract also provides for delayed completion of the project, but without any incentive to the Claimant i.e., the work could be completed even after the original period and during delay of further six months of sanctioned period of completion, but no incentives will be given. There was no formal grant of extension of time in this contract. The communication between the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 1, shows the Respondent No. 2 might have extended the time by one month, but there is no record of the actual time extension document before the AT. May it be so, there was abnormal delay in commissioning of the project and this delay has not been attributed to the Claimant either by the Respondent 1 or the Respondent 2, contemporaneously. It is held by the AT that the delay was not attributable to the Claimant. It is also held that the time is deemed to be extended by conduct of the parties. It is also noted that no
