National Highways Authority of India v. M/S Intercontinental Consultant and Technocrats Pvt Ltd

2. The dispute arose sometime in 2012 pertaining to reimbursement of income tax to the tune of `66,37,332/-. These were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal under the Act. After considering the rival pleadings and submissions of the parties, the Tribunal accepted the claim of the ICT and awarded a sum of over `67 lacs (which was later modified by learned Single Judge) and further sum of `25,52,799/- - both with interest @ 10% per annum.

3. NHAI objected to the award primarily on the construction placed by the Tribunal with respect to the two conditions in the Agreement (Clauses 1.10.[1] and 1.10.2). They read as follows: “1.10.[1] For domestic Consultants and foreign consultants who are permanent residents in India „The Consultants, Sub-consultants and the Personnel shall pay the taxes, duties, fees, levies and other impositions levied under the existing, amended or enacted laws during life of this contract and the client shall perform such duties in regard to the deduction of such tax as may be lawfully imposed. 1.10.[2] For foreign Consultants- The client warrants that the Client shall pay on behalf of the Consultants, Sub-Consultants any taxes, duties, fees, levies and other impositions imposed in India, under the Applicable Law, on the Consultants and Sub-Consultants in respect of: (a) any payments whatsoever made directly by the client to the Consultants and sub-consultants (as authorized by the Consultant), in connection with the carrying out of the Services; (b) any equipment, materials, and supplies brought into India by the Consultants or Sub-consultants for the purpose of carrying out the Services and which, after having been brought into such territories will be subsequently withdrawn therefrom by them.

(c) any equipment imported for the purpose of carrying out the Services and paid for out of funds provided by the Client and which is treated as property, of the Client;

(d) any property brought into India by the Consultants, any Sub-consultants; the Personnel of either of them (other than Indian nationals or permanent residents of India), or the eligible dependents of such Personnel for their personnel use and which will subsequently be withdrawn therefrom by them upon their respective departure from India, provided that; (1) the Consultants, Sub-consultants and Personnel, or eligible dependents, shall follow the usual customs procedures of the Government in importing property into India; and (2) if the Consultants, Sub-consultants or Personnel, or their eligible dependents, do not withdraw but dispose of any property in India upon which customs duties and taxes have been exempted, the Consultants, Sub-consultants or Personnel, as the, case may be,

(i) shall bear such customs duties and taxes in conformity with the regulations of the Government, or

(ii) shall reimburse them to the Client if they were paid by the Client at the time the property in question was brought into India.”

4. NHAI urges that the learned Single Judge fell into error because the Tribunal proceeded beyond the terms of the contract inasmuch as for domestic consultants it was not liable to pay or refund income tax. That was wholly the liability of consultants. It was urged that thus the personnel employed by ICT were not covered by either of the conditions (Clauses 1.10.[1] or 1.10.2).

5. After considering the submissions and the award, the learned Single Judge held as follows:-

6. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in „Mcdermott International Inc vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors.‟, (2006) 11 SCC 181 and the later judgment in „Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority‟, (2015) 3 SCC 49 in both of which the Court held that the decision as to the construction or interpretation of the terms of the contract fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitrator and that the error, if any, cannot, in our opinion, of such interpretation ordinarily ought not to be corrected or interfered with. The NHAI has more or less reiterated its submissions. Before this Court it was argued that the difference between two conditions meant that the personnel covered by Clause 1.10.[1] could not avail the benefit of refund of tax and that the absence of the term personnel or employee precluded the Tribunal from awarding the amounts which did not relate to consultants. This Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in that argument. Besides the same argument and submissions were gone into by the Tribunal which gave proper justifications for its conclusions. Learned Single Judge also, after careful scrutiny, endorsed that view. Given the limited scope of the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act, interference is not called for. Besides the distinction pointed out by the NHAI, to our mind, is entirely unsustainable. The distinction between the two Clauses 1.10.[1] and Clause 1.10.[2] lies as the difference between the nature of residents and whereas the former covers those permanent residents in India, the latter covers those who have foreign residence. A foreign consultant, by whatever name called, as long as it functions in relation to the project, regardless of such labour, would ordinarily fall within Clause 1.10.[2] as was held in this case.

7. For the above reasons, the appeal has to fail and is consequently dismissed along with the pending application.