2019年10月15日，在Union Of India vs M/S Chenab Construction Company (REGD)一案中，印度德里高等法院（以下简称法院）认为，印度辩称某些索赔请求属于“除外事项”，但并未解释为何这些请求属于“除外事项”，因此印度认为涉案请求属于“除外事项”而不属于仲裁范围的论点被法院驳回。法院认为，仲裁员所作的事实认定和法律认定没有任何缺陷，故裁定驳回印度提出的撤销涉案命令（该命令驳回了印度撤销裁决的申请）的申请。
一、案情介绍
印度曾就隧道施工工程发布招标公告。1994年5月24日，印度接受了被告Chenab Construction Company（以下简称Chenab）的投标。1994年9月19日，双方当事人签订正式协议。当事人约定的经调整的最后完工日期为2001年5月31日。2001年11月21日，印度以工程未完成为由终止协议。随后，就未完成的这部分工程，印度以更高的价格发布新的招标。
2004年9月29日，Chenab向印度发送仲裁通知。2008年6月5日，印度指定了一名仲裁员。2013年，Chenab声称由于该仲裁员的调任，未举行有效的庭审，并请求法院终止该仲裁员的委任，重新指定仲裁员。2015年2月25日，法院重新指定了一名独任仲裁员。
2016年12月26日，仲裁庭作出裁决，认为印度终止协议的行为非法，并支持了Chenab的大部分请求。
随后，印度根据《1996年仲裁与调解法》第34条请求德里高等法院撤销仲裁裁决。2017年9月22日，德里高等法院的一名法官作出一项命令，支持仲裁裁决并驳回了印度撤销裁决的申请。印度提出上诉，请求德里高等法院撤销该命令。
二、法院认定
1. 相关合同条款
《合同一般条件》第63条规定：“因本合同引起或与本合同有关的一切争议和分歧，无论发生在工程进行中还是在工程完成后，在合同签订之前还是之后，应当由承包商提交给铁路部门，铁路部门应在收到承包商的说明后的合理时间内以书面形式就承包商所提交的所有事项作出决定并发送通知。但是，《合同一般条件》第18,22(5)条、第39条、第45(a)J条、第55条、第55-A (5) 条、第61(2) 条和第62(I)(xiii)(B)(e)(b)条所规定的事项以及《合同特别条件》所规定的所有事项应当被视为“除外事项”，铁路部门对此作出的决定是终局的，对承包商具有约束力。但是，“除外事项”应明确排除在仲裁条款的范围之外，不应提交仲裁。（Clause 63: all disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract, whether during the progress of the work or after its completion and whether before or after the determination of the contract, shall be referred by the contractor to the Railway and the Railway shall within a reasonable time after receipt of the Contractor's representation make and notify decisions on all matters referred to by the contractor in writing provided that matters for which provisions has been made in clauses 18,22(5), 39, 45(a)J 55, 55-A (5),61(2) and 62(I)(xiii)(B)(e)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract or in any clauses of the special conditions of the contract shall be deemed as 'excepted matters' and decisions thereon shall be final and binding on the contractor provided further that 'excepted matter' shall stand specifically excluded from the purview of the arbitration clause and not be referred to arbitration?）
《合同一般条件》第64条规定：“当事人就本合同的签订、履行发生的争议或者分歧，或者当事人就铁路部门不予履行的事项各自享有的权利和承担的义务，如果承包商声称有权获得任何证书，或者铁路未在合理的时间内做出决定，在这种情况下，第63条中提到的事项将通过仲裁程序裁决。”（any dispute or differences between the parties as to the construction or operation of the contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question withheld by the railways, if any certificate to which contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the railway fails to make a decision, within a reasonable time, then in that case, the matter referred to in clause 63 will be referred for adjudication through the process of arbitration.）
《合同特别条件》第18.1条规定：“18.1合同延长期间的价格调整。上述价格调整，即上涨或降低，将适用于规定的完工日期内以及除根据《北方铁路一般合同条件》第17（4）条（由承包商原因导致的延期）准予延期以外的所有准许的完工延长期间”（18.1. The pricevariation during extended period of contract. The price adjustment as worked out above i.e. either increase or decrease will be applicable upto the stipulated date of completion and for all extensions of time granted to the stipulated dated of completion of work except extension (s) granted under clause 17(4) of Northern Railway General Conditions of contract"）
《合同一般条件》第17（3）条规定：“由铁路部门引起的延期：如果铁路部门在将实施工程所需的土地移交给承包商或在发出开工的必要通知或提供必要的图纸或指示存在任何延迟，或铁路部门因任何其他原因导致任何其他延迟，此种故障或延迟不影响或损害本合同，也不改变合同的性质，承包商无权获得损害赔偿或补偿，但在任何此种情况下，铁路部门可以准予延期，或延长完工日期。”（Extension of time on Railway Account:- In the event of any failure or delay by the Railway to hand over to the Contractor possession of the land necessary for the execution of the works or to give the necessary notice to commence the works or to provide the necessary drawings or instructions of any other delay caused by the Railway due to any other cause whatsoever, then such failure or delay shall in no way affect or vitiate the contract or alter the character there of or entitle the Contractor to damages or compensation therefore but in any such case, the Railway may grant such extension or extensions of the completion date as may be considered reasonable.）
《合同一般条件》第17（4）条规定：“……如果承包商未能在规定的时间内完成工程，且如果承包商能在合理的短时间内完成工程，在不损害铁路部门享有的任何其他权利或救济的情况下，铁路部门应当获得违约损害赔偿，每违约一周或不足一周，违约赔偿为合同价值的0.5%，并在向承包商送达铁路部门的收取上述违约损害赔偿的意向通知后，根据工程师的决定准予延长合同期限……”（Clause 17.4-Time to be of the essence of the contract-The time for completing the works by the date or extended date fixed for completion shall be deemed to be of the essence of the contract and if the Contractor shall fail to complete the works within the time prescribed, the Railway shall, if satisfied that the works can be completed by the contractor within a reasonably short time thereafter been titled, without prejudice to any other right or remedy available on that behalf, to recover by way of a certain and liquidated damages a sum equivalent to one-half of one percent of the contract value of the works for each week orpart of week the Contract is in default and allow the contractor such further extension of time as the Engineer may decide after, serving on the contractor, a notice of Railway's intention, to recover the said liquidated damages (Form Annexure.-VIII).-if the Railway is not satisfied that the works can be completed by the contractor and in the event of failure on the part of the Contractor to complete the works within the further extension of time allowed as aforesaid the Railway shall be entitled, without prejudice to any other right or remedy available in that behalf, to appropriate the Contractor's security deposit and rescind the contract! Under Clause 62 of these conditions whether or not actual damage is caused by the such default.）
《合同特别条件》第21.5条规定：“就闲置劳动力和闲置机器的索赔请求无论如何都不予接受。同样，就业务损失或任何此类损失提出的索赔请求不予接受。（No claim for idle labour and or idle machinery etc. on any account will be entertained. Similarly no claim shall be entertained for business loss or any such loss）
《合同一般条件》第16（2）条规定：“对于定金、保证金以及根据合同应支付给承包商的款项，将不支付任何利息，但根据本条款第（1）款存放的政府债权将连同利息一并支付。”（No interest will be payable upon the Earnest Money and Security Deposit or amounts payable to the Contractor under the contract, but Government Securities deposited in terms of sub-clause (1) of this clause will be payable with interest accrued thereon.）
2. 当事人的观点
印度的律师认为：（1）涉案命令错误地支持了Chenab的第4项仲裁请求，即在协议的延长期内采用上涨的价格。（2）涉案命令错误地支持了Chenab的第6项仲裁请求，即补偿Chenab因租用各种切割机械设备而产生的额外费用。（3）涉案命令错误地支持了Chenab的第10项关于利息的请求。印度律师认为，前述请求属于“除外事项”不属于仲裁的范围，仲裁庭无权作出决定。
印度的律师还认为，铁路部门根据第17（4）条（由承包商导致的延期）准予延长完工期限。根据《合同特别条件》第18.1条规定，此种准予延期不适用价格调整。因此，仲裁员支持Chenab的第4项仲裁请求（即在协议的延长期内采用上涨的价格）的裁定有误。
Chenab的律师指出，将《合同一般条件》第63条和第64条结合起来解读，第63条规定了一个内部机制，用于解决与第63条所列“除外事项”有关的争议，通过内部机制对“除外事项”所作的决定具有终局性，不能提交仲裁；除“除外事项”之外的其他因合同引起的或与之有关的事项则通过仲裁解决。Chenab的律师认为，要使争议事项排除在仲裁范围之外，仅辩称相关争议属于“除外事项”还不够，印度还必须指出用于裁决此类请求的内部机制的可用性（Mere raising a plea by the appellant that the disputes with respect to the claims fall under the category of 'excepted matter' is not sufficient. It was the duty of the appellant to have pointed out the availability of in- house mechanism for adjudicating such claims.）。因此，Chenab的律师认为，涉案请求不属于“除外事项”，而属于仲裁条款的范围。
Chenab的律师还认为，工程延期是由于印度导致。虽然铁路部门在几封准予延期的来往通信中，将延期原因归属于承包商，并根据《一般合同条件》第17（4）条（由承包商原因导致的延期）准予延期。但是，仅声称根据第17（4）条准予延期不足以说明延期确实是根据该条作出。如果根据第17（4）条准予延期，还必须施加违约损害赔偿。但印度并未主张违约损害赔偿，故准予延期并非根据第17（4）条作出，故适用价格调整。
3. 法院的分析与结论
在本案中，就铁道部门未解释其为何一再准予延长合同期限且没有主张任何违约损害赔偿，仲裁员和独任法官认为唯一的答案是Chenab没有过错，否则铁路部分必然会对其施加惩罚。法院认为，仲裁员和独任法官的上述观点没有任何缺陷。（In our view, there is no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and by the learned Arbitrator for the reasons that there is no explanation as to why the Railway continued to extent the period of contract and did not claim any liquid damages, the only answer to this is that the respondent was not in fault else, the Railway would certainly have imposed penalty on the appellant.）
法院赞同独任法官的观点认为，印度在仲裁程序中抗辩第4至第10项请求属于“除外事项”，但并未解释为何这些请求属于“除外事项”。仅仅将一项请求标记为“除外事项”不足以使之成为“除外事项”。印度有义务证明，根据合同提出的某项索赔请求必须由某一特定机关（铁路部门）作出决定，而该机关的决定是最终决定。但是，印度并没有提出这种主张。
另外，法院还支持独任法官的观点认为，根据17（4）条，Chenab在延期期间本无权享受价格调整且须支付损害赔偿。但是，印度已经同意以上涨后的价格向Chenab作出支付，且没有施加任何损害赔偿。因此，仲裁庭的解释在其职权范围内，无论如何也不能被认为非法。（The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed that as per the Clause 17(4), the respondent is not entitled to Price Variation and is subjected to liquidation damages during the extension of time, however, it is an admitted fact that the appellant has accepted an escalation of Rs. 3,30,363/- payable to the respondent and the appellantal so failed to impose any liquidated damages. Therefore, the interpretation of the Arbitral Tribunal is within its domain and the interpretation cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.）
法院认为，《合同一般条件》第17（4）条规定了由承包商导致的不能在规定期限内完成工程的情况，此时如果承包商能在合理的短时间内完成工程，铁路部门有权在向承包商送达收取违约损害赔偿的意向通知后，根据工程师的决定准予延长期限。启用第17（4）条不仅须准予延期，还应当向承包商送达向其收取违约损害赔偿的意向通知。但是，在本案中，印度既未向Chenab主张损害赔偿，也未在其反请求中提出该主张。因此，法院认为，铁路部门准予延期不是跟据第17（4）条（由承包商导致的延期）作出，而是根据第17（3）条（由铁路部门导致的延期）作出。（Simply marking the extension under clause 17 (4) of GCC is not sufficient, in order to attract the clause 17 (4), the appellant should have served the respondent with a notice informing about the intention of the appellant to impose the liquidated damages on the respondent. However, the appellant has neither imposed any liquidated damages on respondent, nor has raised the same in its counter-claims. Clause 17(4) of GCC would be attracted if extension of time is granted subject to liquidated damages. Therefore, the extension given during the tender is issued under clause 17 (3) of GCC and not clause 17 (4) of GCC.）
仲裁庭所作的事实认定和法律认定通常不受《1996年仲裁与调解法》第34条或第37条的干涉。只有当仲裁庭的认定违反当事人之间的合同条款，或从表面看来不合常理时，法院才有绝对必要进行干涉。仲裁庭是评估事实和证据的最终裁判，即使存在事实或法律上的错误，只要未达到反常的程度，也不得根据第34条或第37条进行干涉。在根据《1996年仲裁与调解法》第37条受理上诉时，法院实际上并不是作为上诉法院审查仲裁庭的裁决，因此，法院不会对证据进行重新评估。（It is well settled that findings of fact, as well, as of law, by the Arbitral Tribunal are ordinarily not amenable to interference either under Sections 34 or Section 37 of the Act. The scope of interference is only where the finding of the tribunal is either contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties, or, ex facie, perverse, that interference, by this Court, is absolutely necessary. The Tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act. While entertaining appeals under Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not actually sitting as a Court of appeal over the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and therefore, the Court would not re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence.）为支持其观点，法院援引了MTNL Vs. FujitshuIndia Private Limited, reported at 2015(2)ARB LR332(Delhi)案和NHAI vs. M/s. BSC RBM PATI JV, FAO (OS) (COMM)107/2017案的裁定。
综上所述，法院认为独任法官已经正确地支持了仲裁裁决，故裁定驳回印度提出的撤销涉案命令的申请。
三、评论
本案涉及的主要问题是涉案请求是否属于仲裁条款的范围。根据当事人的仲裁条款，一部分由合同引起或与之有关的争议属于“除外事项”，由铁路部门作出终局决定；其他由合同引起或与之有关的争议则提交仲裁解决。法院认为，仅仅将一项请求标记为“除外事项”不足以使之成为“除外事项”。在本案中，印度在仲裁程序中抗辩某些索赔请求属于“除外事项”，但并未解释为何这些请求属于“除外事项”，因此印度认为涉案请求属于“除外事项”不属于仲裁范围的论点被法院驳回。