1. Finality of Engineer's Report: Where the General Conditions of Contract stipulate that the decision of the Engineer-in-Charge regarding delay and the applicability of a Price Reduction Scheme is final and binding, an Arbitrator is justified in giving decisive weight to an independent delay analysis conducted by the Engineer.
2. Concurrent Delays: Even if minor delays were attributable to the Contractor (e.g., bought-out items), the Arbitrator is not bound to ignore the Engineer's conclusion that such contractor delays were concurrent with delays attributable to the Employer (e.g., shutdowns, design changes). The burden lies on the Petitioner to lead specific expert evidence to traverse the Engineer's final analysis, the absence of which precludes the Arbitrator from taking a different view.
3. Scope of Remedy: The Arbitrator correctly noted that the Petitioner had effectively waived the right to enforce the Price Reduction Scheme by not insisting upon its application earlier. Furthermore, the contractual clause could only be invoked where delays were solely attributable to the Respondent, a condition not met based on the Engineer's report.
4. Interest Rates: Under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitrator enjoys the discretion to determine the period and rate of interest. An award of 18% per annum is not exorbitant to shock the conscience of the Court, especially when it reflects a delicate balance with the rate of interest paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner on mobilization advances.
5. Dismissal: The supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is limited to patent illegality. Where the Award is based on a valid contractual mechanism and factual findings supported by the tender documents, no ground for interference is made out.
