Union of India v. Ramacivil — “Time Starts When Site Is Handed Over”
Overview
Use this hub when: you face LD deductions + a “final/excepted matter” defence, or you need to explain why the handover date should shift the delay narrative in CPWD projects.
Core lesson Win the “start trigger” before fighting LD
When you show that usable access came late, you shift the dispute from “calendar delay” to “attribution”. That’s where LD often collapses if records support employer-caused hindrances.
Timeline (click a step to focus)
Interaction tip: click any timeline step. The hub will highlight it and show the chosen milestone in the top utility bar.
How to use it Timeline → Notices → Entitlement
- Mark the handover milestones (partial and full).
- Overlay your hindrance register entries.
- Then test LD: “was delay actually contractor-caused?”
Issues & findings (why Section 34 didn’t re-try the case)
The Section 34 challenge typically argues: “the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction / decided against the contract.” The court’s approach is usually narrow: it won’t re-weigh evidence, but it will strike down parts that directly contradict an express bar.
| Issue | Clause anchor | What the court typically checks |
|---|---|---|
| Time-count trigger (site availability vs paper start) | Clause 5 | Is the tribunal applying the clause logic correctly (later-of trigger) and relying on a record-based narrative? |
| LD validity when delay attribution is disputed | Clause 2 | Even if LD is “final/excepted” in drafting, attribution (liability) is often still examined by tribunals. |
| Security restrictions cost (absolute money bar) | Clause 9.3 | If the clause says “nothing extra payable,” awards granting extra money are vulnerable to severance. |
| Escalation under the escalation clause logic | Clause 10CA | Whether escalation is computed as a mechanical index-linked adjustment (not as a vague damages head). |
| Judicial interference standard | Section 34 | Is there patent illegality / conflict with public policy / clear contract contradiction? |
Common pitfalls What breaks contractor cases
- No dated handover evidence (you can’t shift the start trigger convincingly).
- Weak hindrance register (no linkage to activity impact / approvals / access).
- Claiming extra money where a special condition is an absolute bar (easy severance).
- Not splitting LD into attribution (liability) and computation (quantum).
Clause map (learn the “machine”)
Think of clauses like a machine: one sets the trigger, another sets the consequence, and records decide which trigger actually fired. Click any chip to copy it for your draft notice.
| Clause | What it controls | Live-project action |
|---|---|---|
| Clause 5 Time & Extension |
Time counts from the later of the stipulated date or the date of handing over of site; extension follows for excusable delay. | Maintain a clean “handover + hindrance” bundle: letters, dated photos, access sketches, and programme impact. |
| Clause 2 LD |
LD applies only if there is culpable delay attributable to the contractor. | Argue attribution first. Without culpable delay, LD trigger collapses. |
| Clause 9.3 Security restrictions |
Special condition: comply with security restrictions and no extra payment is payable for such restrictions. | Price it at tender. Post-award, avoid direct money heads against an absolute bar; focus on permissible relief types. |
| Clause 10CA Escalation |
Index/formula-based adjustment for inflation subject to the clause conditions. | Make it mechanical: indices + period + measurements. Keep it checkable. |
Why it matters (practical takeaways)
This case is useful for CPWD-style projects because it demonstrates a common court pattern: Section 34 is not a re-trial; clear contractual bars are enforced; and disputes often turn on time triggers + records.
Principle Courts don’t love re-appraisal
If the tribunal has applied the clause logic and relied on records, courts generally avoid re-weighing evidence under Section 34.
Pro tip: use the Find in this hub box above to instantly jump to “Clause 5”, “Clause 2”, or “Clause 9.3”.
Mini toolkit (copy-ready skeletons)
Starter structures you can adapt. Keep your facts and dates specific.
Template 1 Hindrance recording letter
Subject: Recording hindrance affecting progress — request for instructions and time adjustment
Body: We record that access/approval/utility shifting for [area/item] remains pending from [date]. This restricts planned activities per our programme.
We request immediate resolution and confirmation that the affected period shall be treated as a hindrance for time-count purposes under the time clause.
We reserve our rights for all consequences under the contract.
Template 2 EOT request (tribunal-style narrative)
- Facts: what happened, when, where.
- Records: hindrance register entries + letter references.
- Clause logic: “later-of start trigger / site handover” → extension basis.
- Impact: days lost + affected activities (attach updated programme if available).
- Relief: extend completion date by X days; confirm no LD for excusable period.
Template 3 Final bill accepted under protest (specific)
We accept receipt of Final Bill payment under protest and without prejudice to our pending entitlements. Specifically, we dispute: (i) deduction of LD because delays were due to recorded hindrances; (ii) unpaid escalation/extra-item balances per escalation/rate clauses; and (iii) interest for delayed certification/payment. We request reconciliation within [X] days failing which we will proceed under the dispute clause.
Read next (internal guides)Links
• Delay Notices – FIDIC vs NEC Guide (templates & checklist)
• Delay and Disruption Claim – SCL Protocol Guide
• The Working of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB)
Use these as your “next click” to keep readers on-site longer.