PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchThe Bombay High Court partially allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay’s challenge to an arbitral award in a construction-contract dispute. It left intact awards for performance-guarantee expenditure and unused casting-yard and mould expenses, but set aside the award for loss of overheads and profits because, according to a secondary case summary, the contractor had not proved the profits it would have earned.
What the court decided
In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited, the Bombay High Court considered MCGM’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award. The reported outcome was mixed: two expense awards survived, while the award for loss of overheads and profits was set aside.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Construction Law, Second Edition | $220.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Smith, Currie & Hancock's Common Sense Construction Law: A Practical Guide for the Construction... | $104.07 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Construction Law | $47.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Construction Contracts and Law (Higher Education Coursebook) | $128.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Construction Law for Managers, Architects, and Engineers | $154.93 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The available account is LawText’s secondary case summary, accessed 10 October 2026, rather than a verified copy of the full judgment. The reasoning below is therefore attributed to that summary; the underlying record and the court’s complete analysis cannot be established from it. LawText case summary
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute| Claim | Amount awarded by the tribunal | Reported treatment in the Section 34 challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Claim No. 1: performance-guarantee expenditure | Rs. 1,35,880 | The High Court left the award undisturbed; the summary describes the claim as a genuine expense not open to challenge under Section 34. |
| Claim No. 5: infructuous expenditure for a casting yard and moulds | Rs. 1,36,421 | The High Court left the award undisturbed; the summary describes the claim as a genuine expense not open to challenge under Section 34. |
| Claim No. 8: loss of overheads and profits | Rs. 1,17,53,180 | The High Court set this part aside. The summary says the contractor did not prove that it would have earned the claimed profits but for termination. |
These are case-specific award amounts, not benchmarks for other construction disputes. The tribunal made the award on 24 March 2012 and corrected it on 12 September 2012.
#1 Best Overall
How the dispute arose
The dispute concerned a construction contract dated 2 December 2004 for grade separators at Gadkari Chowk, Mumbai. According to the case summary, MCGM suspended the work on 26 February 2005, the suspension was not revoked, and the contract was later deemed terminated on 17 April 2008. MCGM filed its Section 34 challenge in 2013.
The court was S.C. Gupte, J., and the matter was Arbitration Petition No. 90 of 2013. The decision was dated 22 January 2019 and is reported as 2019:BHC-OS:2978 and 2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 185.
Rank #2
Why the expenses survived but the profit award did not
Performance-guarantee and setup expenses
The summary reports that the court treated the performance-guarantee expenditure and the casting-yard and mould expenses as genuine claims and found no acceptable basis to disturb those parts of the tribunal’s award under Section 34. These claims concerned expenditure already incurred for the project, rather than anticipated earnings.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Loss of overheads and profits
For Claim No. 8, the reported problem was proof: the contractor had not established that it would have earned the amount claimed but for termination. The summary characterizes the award as unsupported by evidence and contrary to the contract, and reports that the court set it aside. It does not identify the specific documents, testimony, calculations, or contractual clauses the court examined, so no more detailed account of the evidentiary record can be drawn from that source.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
What this decision does—and does not—show
- It shows a partial result in this particular Section 34 challenge: two expense awards remained in place, while the loss-of-overheads-and-profits award did not.
- The reported distinction is between substantiated expenditure and a claim for expected profit that the contractor had not proved on this record.
- It does not establish that loss-of-profit damages are unavailable in every terminated construction contract. The result is tied to this contract and the evidence described in the case summary.
- It is not a complete statement of the current Section 34 test or later case law. Readers assessing another dispute should consult the full judgment, the governing statute, and relevant subsequent authorities.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
