JUDGMENT : T.P. Sharma, Chairman 1. By this reference petition under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) petitioner has claimed Rs. 374.19 Lacs under the different heads along with interest. 2. Execution of an agreement for construction and maintenance of road by both the parties, issuance of work order, extension of time for completion of work by the petitioner, non-release of security deposit, initiation of the recovery proceedings by the respondents has not been substantially disputed by the parties. 3. As per reference petition, petitioner entered into an agreement for construction of road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna vide Article-'A', Ex.-P3 and Ex.-P4, cost of construction was 1297.56 Lacs, period for completion of work was 24 months including rainy season, work order Ex.-P5 dated 03/03/2008 was issued by the respondents. Site for construction was affected by forest land, payment for construction was obtained in the light of obstruction in completion of road within stipulated time. Petitioner requested for extension of time vide letter dated 01/01/2009 by invoking clause 11.1 and 27.1 of the agreement vide Ex.-P8. Respondents directed for affidavit for non-claim of extra payment from the respondents which has been furnished by the petitioner on 01/01/2009 vide Ex.-P9. Time was extended vide Ex.-P10. There were other obstructions in construction which were intimated by the petitioner to the respondents and State Authorities. Site was also affected from Elephant disturbance and Naxal problems. Petitioner was not in a position to complete the work within stipulated extended time. Again petitioner requested for extension of time vide Ex.-P27. Finally, time was extended till 30/04/2010 reserving right to impose the liquidated damages Ex.-P30. Again petitioner was requested for extension of time vide Ex.-P31 dated 17/02/2010. After some correspondence finally respondents extended the time for construction up to 31/07/2010 reserving the right to impose liquidated damages vide Ex.-P37. On account of obstruction in the construction again petitioner requested for extension of time which was finally extended vide Ex.-P42 dated 06/01/2011 imposing liquidated damages of 10% under clause 44 of the agreement. Finally, petitioner has completed the work as per claim of the petitioner, work done by the petitioner amounting Rs. 35.77 Lacs has not been measured and paid to the petitioner, security deposit of Rs. 61.96 Lacs has not been refunded to the petitioner, Rs. Finally, petitioner has completed the work as per claim of the petitioner, work done by the petitioner amounting Rs. 35.77 Lacs has not been measured and paid to the petitioner, security deposit of Rs. 61.96 Lacs has not been refunded to the petitioner, Rs. 9.50 Lacs were deducted from the petitioner's bill which has not been paid to the petitioner, petitioner has also claimed Rs. 94.48 Lacs for loss of overheads, Rs. 80.92 Lacs for loss of profit, Rs. 57.25 Lacs claim for escalation, Rs. 12.50 Lacs for refund of royalty paid by the petitioner, Rs. 21.81 Lacs as Ante-lite interest, thereby, petitioner has claimed total Rs. 374.19 Lacs. 4. By filing reference petition the execution of an agreement, commencement of the work, extension of period of completion 4 time with reserving the right to impose liquidated damages and finally, liquidated damages of 10%. 5. In their written statement, respondents had categorically admitted the substantive pleadings of the petitioner and had pleaded that, petitioner was bound to complete the work within stipulated time but, at the request of petitioner time was extended for 4 times reserving the right to impose liquidated damages and specifying that petitioner shall not claim any amount of compensation including escalation, finally, liquidated damages at the rate of 10% has been imposed upon the petitioner vide Ex.-D3. Respondents has calculated the liquidated damages to the Rs. 1,24,70,423/- which has not been deposited by the petitioner. Virtually, petitioner is not entitled for any claim but, respondent is entitled to recover liquidated damages to the tune of Rs. 1,24,70,423/- from the petitioner. 6. In the light of rival pleading of the parties the moot question for determination arose in the reference petition is whether petitioner is entitled for claim of Rs. 374.19 Lacs under different heads. 7. We have heard counsel for petitioner Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh and counsel for respondents Mr. G.B. Ghatge and perused the records and written submission submitted by the parties. 8. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh submitted that, after issuance of work order, petitioner has started the work but, workable site was not available and there were hindrance substantive in nature, considerable time has been spent in removal of such hindrance and in making the site workable. Therefore, no option except to request for extension time was left to the petitioner. Ajay Pratap Singh submitted that, after issuance of work order, petitioner has started the work but, workable site was not available and there were hindrance substantive in nature, considerable time has been spent in removal of such hindrance and in making the site workable. Therefore, no option except to request for extension time was left to the petitioner. Therefore, from time to time petitioner had requested for extension of time and finally, petitioner completed the work. Delay was on account of respondents; its machinery and man power were idle for substantive period on account of respondents fault petitioner was not able to complete the task within stipulated time. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for loss of overheads, loss of profit, claim under head escalation, money retained by respondents, payment for the work carried out by the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the matter M/s. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another 1999 Arb. W.L.J. 732, where Supreme Court has held that, any time fixed for delivery of material by itself does not make the time the essence of the contract and in case of reciprocal obligations the strict adherence of the time schedule or question of continuing with the notion of the time being the essence of the contract would not arise. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance in the matter of Vishal Engineers and Builders Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2012 Arb. W.L.J. 211 (Del), where Delhi High Court has held that, in case when no loss at all is caused to the employer then employer is not entitled for liquidated damages. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance in the matter of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (2) Arb. LR 264 (Delhi) (DB), where High Court of Delhi has held that, reasoned award passed by arbitral tribunal is not likely to be disturbed. 12. Counsel for petitioner has further placed reliance in the matter of M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Vs. Abrar Construction Company and Others, 2005 Arb. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (2) Arb. LR 264 (Delhi) (DB), where High Court of Delhi has held that, reasoned award passed by arbitral tribunal is not likely to be disturbed. 12. Counsel for petitioner has further placed reliance in the matter of M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Vs. Abrar Construction Company and Others, 2005 Arb. W.L.J. 310 (MP), where High Court of M.P. has held that, payment of royalty for extraction of minor mineral is a liability of contractor but, if he has purchased the same from open market and is not required to pay royalty and it can't be presumed that, same was brought it stealthily from the quarry without payment of royalty. 13. Counsel for respondents Mr. G.B. Ghatge has opposed the submission made by counsel for petitioner and has specifically placed reliance upon Ex.-P9, Ex.-P30, Ex.-P33, Ex.-P37, Ex.-D3 and has submitted that, in the light of specific order by the respondents and extension of time reserving rights to impose liquidated damages and specifying that, petitioner would not be entitled for any compensation and on the ground of consent given by the petitioner that, he will not claim any compensation including escalation. Petitioner is not entitled for any claim and respondents could be entitled to recover the liquidated damages. 14. As per Ex.-P14, first extension order dated 04/04/2009 time was extended up to 21/12/2009 at the on the basis of evidence produced by the petitioner and affidavit submitted by the petitioner Ex.-P11 in which petitioner has specifically mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit that, in case extension he will not claim any additional demand. Petitioner has again requested for extension of time which was extended vide Ex.-P30 dated 04/02/2010 reserving right to impose damages and specifying the facts that, petitioner would not be entitled for any damages. Again petitioner requested for extension of time, again time was extended reserving the right to impose liquidated damages and specifying that, petitioner would not be entitled for any damages vide Ex.-P37. For third extension petitioner has filed application on 15/04/2010 vide Ex.-P33 in which petitioner has specifically mentioned that, petitioner will complete the task within the extended time and will not claim the escalation. Petitioner had received final bill vide Ex.-D2 full and final bill settlement of his claim without any protest. Ex.-D3 in their recovery letter issued by the respondents to the petitioner for recovery of Rs. Petitioner had received final bill vide Ex.-D2 full and final bill settlement of his claim without any protest. Ex.-D3 in their recovery letter issued by the respondents to the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 129.76 Lacs under the terms of agreement at the rate of 10%. 15. Admittedly, there were some hindrance in continuation of the work and time was extended severally with reserving the right to impose damages and liquidated damages at the time of grant of first extension vide Ex.-P14, affidavit Ex.-P11 was submitted by the petitioner showing the condition that petitioner will not claim any additional amount as compensation, second and third extension was also granted with reserving right to impose penalty and specifying that, petitioner would not entitled for any claim or compensation. At the time of last extension petitioner itself has requested the respondents vide Ex.-P33 that, he will not claim any compensation including escalation. It clearly shows that, although there was some hindrance but, petitioner was able to complete the task and petitioner has failed to complete the task. Therefore, time was extended several times with the condition proposed by the petitioner that, petitioner will not claim any compensation or claim under the head escalation. Inter-alia respondents have reserved their right to impose liquidated damages which they have finally imposed vide Ex.-D3. 16. At the time of extension of the time for completion of work it was ample clear and was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that, petitioner will not entitled for any compensation or escalation. Virtually, these were the terms put forwarded by the petitioner for granting extension. Therefore, after completion of work the petitioner would not be permitted to go by the terms for extensions put forwarded by itself. Petitioner is stopped by claiming contrary to the consent given by it and terms for claiming extension put forwarded by it by the principles of promissory estoppel. 17. As per Ex.-D2 petitioner itself has received the full and final bill without any protest which also debar the petitioner from making any subsequent claim. 18. As held in case of M/s. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another 1999 Arb. W.L.J. 732 (Supra) time may not be essence of contract in each and every case. 17. As per Ex.-D2 petitioner itself has received the full and final bill without any protest which also debar the petitioner from making any subsequent claim. 18. As held in case of M/s. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another 1999 Arb. W.L.J. 732 (Supra) time may not be essence of contract in each and every case. In the present case at the time of extension the petitioner itself has proposed condition that, he will not claim for damages, compensation, escalations and respondents had reserved the right to impose damages or liquidated damages. As held in case of M/s. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another 1999 Arb. W.L.J. 732 (Supra) is distinguishable on the ground of facts. 19. As held in case of Vishal Engineers and Builders Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 1999 Arb. W.L.J. 732 (Supra) without any loss recovery of liquidated damages is not proper in the present case at the time of grant of extension it was the specific condition. Therefore, the case of Vishal Engineers and Builders Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2012 Arb. W.L.J. 211 (Del) (Supra) is distinguishable on the ground of facts. In the present case entitlement of petitioner to claim of compensation including under the head escalation is required to be considered, in the light of the condition mentioned in extension order and condition put forward by the petitioner at the time of making promise for extension of time which clearly demonstrate that, petitioner itself has proposed and promised that, in case of extension he will not claim any compensation including the claim under escalation. Thereafter, time was extended reserving right to impose liquidated damages. 20. Terms put forwarded and promise made by the petitioner at the time of extension are sufficient to make the petitioner disentitled for claiming compensation under any head or any claim after receiving the final bill as full and final bill without any protest and is stopped by the principle of promissory estoppel. 21. In the light of aforesaid terms put forward and terms made by the petitioner at the time of extension we do not find any ground awarding any compensation or claim to the petitioner. 22. Consequently, we do not find any substance in this petition and petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Advocate fees if certified as per schedule. 22. Consequently, we do not find any substance in this petition and petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Advocate fees if certified as per schedule. Memo of cost be drawn accordingly.