1. FACTS

Due to the 42-month delay, arbitration was required in the case involving All India Radio (AIR) and M/s. Unibros regarding delays in the construction of Delhi Doordarshan Bhawan. Due to resource blocking and prolonged service provision beyond the limits of the contract, Unibros claimed loss of earnings. The arbitrator first used Hudson’s calculation to determine compensation. But AIR contested this under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, claiming insufficient proof. The dispute was remanded for reconsideration based only on the evidence that was available after the Delhi High Court’s single bench underlined the arbitrator’s disregard for credible evidence. The arbitrator upheld the loss of profit compensation in a new award. But the DHC’s single bench overturned the Second Award, claiming that it went against Indian public policy. The division bench affirmed this ruling on appeal, highlighting the dearth of proof behind Unibros’ loss of profit allegation. They also discovered that the Second Award was counter to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which handles cases involving loss of profit. Ultimately, the lack of hard evidence to back up Unibros’s allegation determined the judges’ rulings. The arbitrator’s initial compensation award was overturned because there was insufficient evidence, even though it was based on Hudson’s methodology. The requirement for concrete evidence of Unibros’ financial losses as a result of project delays was underscored by the courts. This case emphasizes how crucial it is to provide strong evidence while participating in arbitration procedures, especially when it comes to financial claims. The compensation award was rejected even though a widely recognized formula was used; this was due to the absence of supporting documentation. Furthermore, the focus placed by the courts on ensuring that judgments are in line with the law and public policy draws attention to the larger framework that is used to assess arbitration rulings.


The main question in the Unibros v. All India Radio case concerned whether the contractor, Unibros, was entitled to damages for lost earnings resulting from delays in finishing the building of Doordarshan Bhawan. Delays were accepted, but the crucial issue was whether Unibros could provide enough proof of actual, quantifiable profit losses to support its claim. The court stressed that it was insufficient to depend only on calculations like Hudson’s and the fact that there were delays in the project. Rather, Unibros was required to provide tangible evidence of actual monetary damages that might be directly linked to the project’s delayed completion. The decision emphasized the need for more than approximations or formulaic approaches, underscoring the significance of concrete evidence in arbitration hearings. In the end, the case brought attention to the burden of proof in arbitration cases involving claims for lost profits. It emphasized the necessity of specificity and dependability above and beyond theoretical computations or broad claims, underscoring the need for parties to provide strong proof to support their financial claims.


Petitioner (Unibros) :-

The claimant contended that AIR was responsible for the project’s delay and claimed it suffered financial losses as a result. They argued that because of the delay, they should be compensated for lost profits. Citing AIR as the cause of the setback, the claimant requested compensation to lessen the negative effect on their finances. They highlighted the direct connection between the delay and the resulting financial losses, emphasizing their right to reimbursement for the profits they forfeited over the project’s extended duration. This is the main point of contention in their request for reimbursement, which is aimed at recovering the financial damages brought on by the AIR-caused delay.

Respondent (All India Radio):-

All India Radio contested Unibros’ award of lost earnings. They contended that their activities weren’t the only reason behind the project delays, which undermined the rationale for this judgment. All India Radio insisted that they were not solely to blame for the delays, citing other contributing reasons. As a result, they claimed it was unfair to give Unibros lost revenues because of these delays. Their position suggested that it was unfair to hold them solely responsible for the project delays and highlighted the need for a more thorough analysis of the facts. This challenge emphasizes how difficult it can be to assign blame in construction disputes and supports All India Radio’s contention that the arbitrator’s ruling did not fully take into account the complicated nature of the delay issue.


The court debated whether the contractor, Unibros, was entitled to reimbursement for lost profits brought on by construction project delays in the case of Unibros v. All India Radio. Even though Unibros calculated their losses using the widely accepted Hudson’s formula, the court deemed this to be insufficient in the absence of hard proof of real financial harm suffered. The ruling emphasized the need for concrete evidence, such as particular contracts that were abandoned because of the delays, opportunities for projects that were lost, or measurable financial losses. The court also emphasized an important distinction: although project delays were acknowledged, they did not always justify lost profit compensation. Rather, a clear connection must be made between the recorded financial losses or lost opportunities and the delay. This decision established the purpose of formulas such as Hudson’s and gave the claimant the whole burden of proving that they are entitled to damages for profit loss. Public policy and arbitration principles were also critical factors to take into account. The court emphasized the significance of maintaining reliable arbitration procedures and guarding against the misuse of compensation claims made without sufficient proof. In the end, the case protects more general legal principles and public interests while also highlighting the critical significance of evidentiary requirements in arbitration processes, notably in claims for loss of profit.


Unibros may bring up several purported legal flaws pertaining to the application and interpretation of legal principles in their case while contesting the Court’s ruling. First, they could claim that Hudson’s formula—a widely used technique for calculating profit loss—has been misinterpreted. Unibros may argue that the Court misused the formula, either by ignoring pertinent elements essential to its appropriate use or by applying the wrong principles. Second, they could argue that it was unduly difficult for them to prove their case because the Court placed an unnecessarily high burden of proof on them. They may point to earlier instances in which comparable degrees of proof were judged adequate in comparable circumstances. Thirdly, Unibros may argue that the Court erroneously determined the causal relationship between the delay in the project and their alleged loss of profit. To support their case, they could provide concrete examples of lost opportunities or project losses that were caused by the delay.

But it’s crucial to take into account the Court’s logic as well as the larger framework of relevant legal concepts. In order to avoid speculative claims and preserve the integrity of arbitration rules, the Court underlined the necessity for tangible proof beyond calculations like Hudson’s. Furthermore, arbitral rulings are normally subject to a deferential standard of scrutiny by courts, which only becomes involved in cases involving grave legal errors. Unibros would therefore need to present strong evidence of a glaring legal error on the part of the Court. Furthermore, evaluating the purported flaws in the statute accurately requires knowledge of the precise specifics of the material put forth by Unibros and the Court’s analysis. It is difficult to provide a conclusive evaluation of the merits of Unibros’ allegations in the absence of this backdrop.


In Unibros v. All India Radio, a case involving the entitlement to loss of profit, Unibros probably argued that their punctuality and contract compliance entitled them to damages for lost earnings resulting from lost chances. On the other hand, All India Radio may have countered that Unibros’ evidence, which mostly relied on calculations similar to Hudson’s, was insufficient to show actual, measurable losses that could be linked to the delays. It’s possible that Unibros claimed the Court unduly burdened them with too much proof by requiring more than just the widely accepted Hudson’s formula. On the other hand, the Court might have deduced that retaining a lesser burden of proof for claims of lost profits might encourage baseless lawsuits and might hurt conscientious contractors. In terms of causality, Unibros may have provided particular proof of lost opportunities or projects in order to make the case that there was a direct causal connection between the delays and their lost revenues. On the other hand, the Court might have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a clear link between the delays and the damages that were alleged, calling for more substantial evidence of genuine suffering. Generally speaking, the case may highlight how crucial it is to provide solid proof in arbitration for loss-of-profit claims, above and beyond algorithms. It recommends that courts examine these claims more closely in order to achieve justice and avoid inflated losses. Furthermore, it suggests that in order to support compensation claims, there must be a strong connection established between delays and observably lost opportunities or monetary losses. These deductions highlight the need of accuracy and dependability in presenting and assessing claims for loss of profit, and they shed light on more general issues pertaining to evidentiary standards, burden of proof, and causality in arbitration proceedings.