Scholarly Paper

Role of Case Laws in Claim Management and Contracts

Murali Jagannathan 1; Vivek Nawle 2; Vijayeta Malla, S.M.ASCE 3; and
Venkata Santosh Kumar Delhi, A.M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: There is a long history of court judgments in the construction sector, providing a wealth of knowledge that can guide contract
parties in preempting claims and disputes in construction projects. However, knowledge from case law findings does not seem to percolate to
day-to-day contract management activities. This anecdotal statement needs empirical verification. Thus, the current study attempted to under-
stand the extent of case-law-based legal knowledge percolation in day-to-day contract management and its impact on the dispute resolution
climate. The study highlighted the gap between the need for and availability of case-law-based training/knowledge using data from India.
There were four major observations from the research. First, questionnaire survey results highlighted the fact that engineers and managers in
construction projects acknowledge the inevitability of legal awareness for day-to-day contract management. While about 72% of the respond-
ents (76 out of 106) agreed that case-law-based training could have helped in managing disputes better, only 10% (11 out of 106 respondents)
reported that their organizations offer regular case-law-based knowledge and training. Moreover, 65% of the respondents (69 out of 106) either
confirmed that their organizations do not maintain a case-law learning repository or they are unaware of its availability. Therefore, the second
observation is that there is a shortfall in avenues that help professionals gain case-law-based knowledge from training. Although pure
experience-based learning can lead to a risky trial and error approach, opportunities for self-learning are also muted. Third, by highlighting
a growing trend of expenses incurred for the arbitration and litigation of construction disputes—in other words, legalization—the study
highlighted the importance of the development and administration of case-law-based professional training programs. Last, the study also
illustrated the potential for case laws to guide engineers and managers in their day-to-day contract management activities. The findings from
the study can help the construction industry collaborate closely with researchers and academicians to move a step closer to making legal
knowledge easily accessible to contract managers and help them make decisions that can withstand legal scrutiny. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
LA.1943-4170.0000558. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Legalization; Case laws; Construction; Disputes; Projects.

Introduction and Delhi 2020; Kisi et al. 2020). In India, it is well-documented

The construction industry is prone to claims and disputes, and the
resolution of these is often time-consuming and expensive (Gerber
and Serra 2011). Disputes are typically resolved through amicable
dispute resolution mechanisms (negotiation, mediation, dispute ad-
judication boards, and conciliation) or binding techniques such as
arbitration and litigation. Binding dispute resolution techniques are
preferred when there is a need for enforceability (Chan et al. 2006;
Haugen and Singh 2015). However, considering the short duration
of the construction phase in a project life cycle (which in typical
cases ranges from 2 to 5 years), binding dispute resolution techniques
are time-consuming, expensive, and often adversarial (Jagannathan
1 arguments play a major role. In other words, there is a shift toward
Assistant Professor, School of Construction Management, National
Institute of Construction Management and Research, Pune, Maharashtra
411045, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003
-2267-632X. Email: avemurali@gmail.com; mjagannathan@nicmar.ac.in
2
Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, Maharashtra 400076, India.
3
Assistant Professor, School of Construction Management, National
Institute of Construction Management and Research, Hyderabad, Telangana
500101, India. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9377-8414
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra 400076, India.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 2, 2022; approved on
May 24, 2022; published online on September 10, 2022. Discussion period
open until February 10, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN
1943-4162.
that courts are grappling with a huge backlog of pending cases
(Ministry of Finance 2018). Even in arbitration cases, delays,
appeals, and counterappeals mar the process (Moza and Paul 2016;
Procurement Policy Division NITI Aayog 2021). When disputes
accumulate over time, the resolution process becomes complicated
and is often delayed. Furthermore, when construction disputes
are litigated, the resulting delays set off a vicious cycle, breeding
further litigation instances (Chemin 2010).
In a typical construction dispute resolution process, parties first
attempt to resolve disputes through amicable dispute resolution
means in which parties resolve disputes through discussions. How-
ever, when such attempts fail, parties are left with no other option but
to resort to binding means such as arbitration and litigation, in which
the legalization of the dispute resolution process. In this study, the
word legalization refers to parties using arbitration tribunals and
courts to resolve disputes they could not solve using amicable dis-
pute resolution methods. Worldwide, there is evidence of the legali-
zation of construction disputes (Axten et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2020). In
attempting to understand the reasons leading to litigation behavior,
researchers have noted that, among other things, when disputes are of
a high value or factually and legally complex, there is a higher ten-
dency to litigate (Jagannathan and Delhi 2021; Marzouk et al. 2011),
highlighting the role of parties in the dispute resolution process.
If a party (represented by its engineer) intends to resolve a
dispute in its favor, the party must be aware of the pros and cons
of any decision taken (or indecision) about the matter so that
they do not end up complicating the issue (resulting in litigation).
When engineers involved in a project are equipped with adequate

© ASCE 04522025-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

 legal knowledge through professional training, they are not only
enabled to identify dispute-causing scenarios and mitigate them
but are also helped to build strong merit- and fact-based claims
(or counterclaims) in the event the matter ends up in court
(Padroth et al. 2017). Knowledge of previous court judgments—
in other words, case law—can help develop practical training mod-
ules to explain both procedural and substantive aspects of dispute
resolution. Case-law-based training can help practitioners develop
contextual thinking and refine their decision making in a contrac-
tually viable manner (avoiding future legal complications).
This questionnaire-survey-based study attempted to understand
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the extent to which case-law-based legal knowledge has percolated
into the construction industry and stakeholders’ perceptions and
the relevance of case-law-based training in mitigating disputes. The
study highlights what can be learned from some court judgments in
the Indian jurisdiction in order to illustrate the potential legal
knowledge that can be gained from case law and develop training
content for contract administration and management guidelines.
In the next section, the extant literature is reviewed and study ob-
jectives are laid down; this is followed by a description of the re-
search methodology.
Literature Review
It is well established in the literature that construction projects are
prone to cost and time overruns, leading to claims and disputes
(Jagannathan and Delhi 2020; Jelodar et al. 2016; Mitropoulos and
Gregory 2001; Sun and Meng 2009). It has also been observed that
claim settlement and dispute resolution processes are long and
drawn out (Diao et al. 2020; Fawzy and El-adaway 2012; Gerber
and Serra 2011) and often tend to escalate into complex, unpleasant,
and adversarial discussions (Kisi et al. 2020) that require neutral
third-party intervention (Fenn et al. 1997) to either bring the parties
to a settlement (mediation and conciliation) or adjudicate on the
matter (arbitration and litigation). When adjudicative methods are
involved, with growing evidence of the legalization of disputes
grows (Lee et al. 2021)—the resolution process centers more on
techno-legal issues, with merits and contemporaneous records, rather
than on closed-door and informal discussions relevant to determining
the fate of the claim (Brooker 1999; Marzouk et al. 2011).
With success in arbitration or litigation depending on the
contractual merit in a claim, the focus shifts to the robustness of
contract administration. A well-administered contract can poten-
tially prevent the escalation of disputes to arbitration and litigation
(Fawzy and El-adaway 2012; Wang 2020). Also, timely contractual
actions (like serving notices and reserving rights) are the key to suc-
cess in arbitration and litigation (Abdul-Malak and Khalife 2017;
Quapp and Holschemacher 2020). With contract administration
under focus, engineers and managers are expected to understand
the legal repercussions of their decisions/indecision. A recent report
on claims in engineering and construction projects observed that
incorrect contract interpretation and contract management failure
are among the top five causes of claims or disputes worldwide
(Axten et al. 2021). Therefore, legal knowledge is inevitable for
both dispute avoidance and dispute resolution (Evans 2012; Padroth
et al. 2017; Quapp and Holschemacher 2020). These observations
highlight the importance of assessing the extent of legal knowledge
awareness among engineers and managers involved in construction
projects.
Legal System in India and Importance of Case Law
India follows the common-law legal system, a model prevalent
in most former British colonies. According to Srikrishna (2008),
© ASCE 04522025-2
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025
while the jurisprudence followed in India is very similar to the
common-law model followed in England, it has evolved in consid-
eration of local needs and values. Indian courts play a crucial role in
interpreting the constitution and the laws enacted by the legislature
(Singh 1964).
When parties argue, taking refuge in legislative acts and judicial
precedence, the courts provide their judgment after considering
the facts of the case, precedent, and relevant legislative acts (laws
passed by the elected body). Legislative acts typically contain legal
provisions at a broader level. Dispensing justice—applying such
broad legislative provisions to a specific case containing unique
facts—is not easy, and the courts play a major role here. For exam-
ple, according to Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Concili-
ation Act, 1996 (the Act), an arbitral award can be challenged on
grounds such as “public policy” and “patent illegality.” The terms
public policy and patent illegality are broad, and courts typically
discuss the circumstances that qualify for the invocation of Section
34 provisions of the Act. In a recent judgment delivered by the
Delhi High Court, India, the court observed that inordinate and
unexplained delay in rendering arbitral awards conflicts with the
public policy of India (Director General Central Reserve Police
Force v. Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd., 2022).
Similarly, in another case, the Supreme Court of India noted that
an arbitral award that ignores vital evidence or rewrites a contract
is liable to be set aside under the “patent illegality” provision of
Section 34 of the Act (PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. Board
of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin and Others,
2021). Such information is not available in the legislative acts; it is
only found in case law. Therefore, beyond the provisions of legis-
lative acts, the contents of various landmark judgments can help
interpret legal provisions in legislative acts to withstand judicial
scrutiny.
Importance of Legal Training
Findings from extant studies highlight the need to improve contract
interpretation capabilities so that legal complications can be avoided
in the future (Iyer and Satyanarayana 2002). Therefore, it is vital to
understand the legal readiness of professionals associated with con-
tract administration and execution. In general, researchers who have
attempted to map the competencies of engineering graduates with
specific construction industry requirements have observed gaps in
awareness levels and industry requirements (Othman 2013; Yap
et al. 2021; Yogeshwaran et al. 2014). In particular, attempts to
understand the legal preparedness of engineers have been discussed
in the literature from two perspectives, namely, a prior-knowledge
perspective and an on-the-job training perspective. Researchers ex-
ploring the prior-knowledge perspective have mainly focused on the
law and contract components in engineering curricula (Arain 2009;
Barnas et al. 2019; Cheung et al. 2004; Gerber 2009; Quapp and
Holschemacher 2020), and studies from the on-the-job training per-
spective have focused on the capacity building of working engineers
(Alter and Koontz 1996; Bell et al. 2014; Wang 2020). The ap-
proach in these two cases is slightly different, but the underlying
point conveyed by the domain researchers is that legal knowledge
is indispensable in construction. Researchers have previously high-
lighted the absence of formal legal training and excessive reliance
on “intuition, common sense and hearsay,” leading to contract man-
agement failures (Thomas and Ellis 2007). Researchers have em-
phasized the importance of legal knowledge extracted from case law
(Demachkieh et al. 2020; El-adaway et al. 2009; Levin 1998, 2016).
The required legal knowledge can be secured through professional
and formal training mechanisms and gained through experience.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Considering a theoretical perspective on the relationship
between experience and training needs, two schools of thought ex-
ist in the literature. One school believes that with experience, there
is a greater capacity to assess training requirements, and the other
opines that the perceived importance of training needs decreases
with experience (Dierdorff and Surface 2008; McDaniel et al.
1988; Tross and Maurer 2000). Dierdorff and Surface (2008) ob-
served that, in some instances, the level of individual experience is
unrelated to training needs. In a study by Padroth et al. (2017), in
which very senior and experienced professionals were interviewed,
there existed a need to augment legal knowledge, especially with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
professionals consider case-law-based legal knowledge to be essen-
tial and their willingness to understand and apply contract manage-
ment aspects from case law, (2) the support they have received in
this direction in their professional education and on-the-job training
programs in the organizations in which they are employed, (3) the
legalization trend, and (4) the potential of the wealth of information
available in court judgments from the Indian jurisdiction consider-
ing illustrative cases on price escalation and liquidated damages.
The importance of the research outcome is to understand the pos-
sible gaps between research and industry when it comes to applying
accumulated case-law-based legal knowledge to avoid or resolve

regard to contract interpretation. Therefore, in the context of con- contractual disputes in construction.
struction, in addition to experience-based learning, it is essential to
assess training needs and develop training modules aimed at the
capacity building of engineers and managers in construction proj- Methodology
ects. While it can be anecdotally said that experience-based learn-
ing is commonly found in construction projects, the impact of such To fulfill the four objectives of the study, a three-stage research
learning processes on the claims and dispute management process methodology, as indicated in Fig. 1, was followed. Stagewise
requires further empirical investigation. explanation is provided.
When it comes to the contents of training modules, researchers
have considered practical, real-life scenario-based teaching that is Stage 1: Examining the Percolation of Case-Law-Based
aimed at preparing a student/contract manager to deal with a given Learning and Training
scenario aptly as being more critical (Gerber 2010; Lee et al. 2021;
Industry professionals from varied backgrounds (clients, contractors,
Silva and Cowap 2008; Soo et al. 2008) than rote learning of
and consultants) with a wide range of experience and hailing from
complex areas of law (Gerber 2009). In particular, case-law- and
the public and private sectors were administered a questionnaire
precedent-based knowledge enhancement and capacity building of
seeking their opinions on the importance of legal knowledge in
students and professionals seems to be the recommended approach
day-to-day contract management and available opportunities to build
(Arneson and Ozbek 2020; Lee et al. 2021; McLernon 2009). In
capacities. The responses were analyzed using the Statistical Pack-
the realm of contract interpretation, Thomas and Ellis (2007) de-
age for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 21 statistical tool. A one-sample
veloped interpretation rules based on legal research and judicial t-test was conducted to understand the difference between the actual
decisions. Studies by Abdul-Malak and Hamie (2019), Hamie and mean of the responses and the hypothesized mean. Researchers com-
Abdul-Malak (2018), and Thomas (2012) have further reinforced monly use a one-sample t-test for hypothesis testing (Ogunbiyi et al.
the importance of court-verdict-based contract interpretation. 2014). In a one-sample t-test, the null hypothesis (represented by
HO ) is assumed not to be different from the hypothesized mean.
The alternative hypothesis (represented by Ha ) is that the attribute
Research Gap Analysis, Problem Statement, is significantly different from the hypothesized mean (Tabish and Jha
and Objectives 2012). Mathematically, the equations can be represented as below:
It is clear from the extant research that (1) legal knowledge is indis- Ho ∶ U ¼ Uo ð1Þ
pensable for contract interpretation, (2) analysis of case law can
help distill key legal principles and develop rules and guidelines Ha ∶ U is significantly different from U o ð2Þ
that can be integrated into training modules, and (3) legal training
The variable U represents the mean of the responses for a given
can be imparted as a part of professional education or integrated
question, and U o represents the hypothesized mean (population
with on-the-job training modules (or both). Experiential learning
is a part of professional life; however, it may not be a formal train-
ing process. Given the great emphasis laid by researchers and acad-
emicians on case-law-based learning and training, there is a need
for an empirical assessment to assess the extent of percolation.
However, such attempts, especially in the context of developing
countries, are not commonly found in the literature. Second, while
the literature highlights the importance of case-law-based training to
prevent disputes from ending up in arbitration and courts, the rel-
evance of litigation avoidance cannot be fully realized unless a mon-
etary value is attached to it to describe the magnitude of the growing
legalization trend. The financial data for establishing the legalization
trend can be derived from information in the annual reports of con-
struction firms and financial data repositories.
Therefore, this study’s problem statement is that while the need
for legal knowledge has been discussed in research domains, the
percolation of this realization into the industry, given the rising
legalization trend, requires assessment in order to channel efforts
into developing case-law-based training modules. Along the lines
of the aforementioned research gap and problem statement, the
Fig. 1. Overall research methodology.
authors of this article examine (1) the extent to which working

© ASCE 04522025-3 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

 mean). The test statistic for a one-sample t-test, denoted by t,
is calculated using the following formula:

 
S delays in financial closure (declaration of audited financial perfor-
t ¼ ðx̄ − μo Þ pffiffiffi ð3Þ
n mance results) due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As per the RTI re-
where μo = test value (proposed/hypothesized); x̄ = sample mean;
n = sample size; and S = sample standard deviation.
The value of t as calculated in Eq. (3) is compared to the critical
t value from the t distribution table, considering a confidence level
of 5% (p value). If t > critical t, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The foregoing operations can be automatically performed using the
built-in function in the SPSS 21 software.
Subsequently, ANOVA was conducted to understand if there
were any significant differences between the means of the various
subgroups (organization affiliation—public and private sectors;
organization type—client, contractor, and consultant; highest
educational qualification—graduate, postgraduate; and overall
experience—less than five years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 15 years,
15 to 20 years, 20 to 25 years, 25 to 30 years, and more than
30 years). ANOVA is commonly used in studies that require com-
paring response patterns with subgroups based on information col-
lected through the demographics section of a questionnaire survey
(Marzouk and El-Rasas 2014). Mathematically, ANOVA can be
represented as follows:
Ho ∶ μ1 ¼ μ2 ð4Þ
H a ∶ μ1 is significantly different from μ2 ð5Þ
where μ1 and μ2 = means of two different subgroups of respond-
ents under a particular question. The confidence level chosen to
reject the null hypothesis was p ¼ 5%. Considering the nonnormal
nature of the data, a one-way Kruskal-Wallis test, the nonparamet-
ric equivalent of ANOVA, was performed to verify the validity of
the ANOVA results.
Stage 2: Examine Legalization Trends to Highlight the
Importance of Case-Law-Based Training
The expenses currently incurred for arbitration and litigation
(including legal advice and court fees) by two large public sector
firms in India were assessed. The first organization is involved
in the construction, operation, and maintenance of highways and
expressways in India (Organization A), and the second is a power
infrastructure firm that manages power project construction, oper-
ation, and maintenance, among other things (Organization B). The
legalization trends in the two organizations were calculated as a
ratio of legal charges and their annual work done (output), as shown
in Eq. (6):
LA ¼ ðannual legal chargesÞ=ðperformance outputÞ ð6Þ
where LA = legalization trend for Organization A; and legal
charges = annual expenses incurred for arbitration and litigation.
Considering the nature of the organization’s operations, the
legalization trend of Organization A was represented by legal ex-
penses per kilometer of road construction; for Organization B,
it was represented by legal expenses per 100 million units of power
generated. The data for legal expenses were obtained by submitting
a request for information to the respective organizations under
India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, in 2019; data about
legal and arbitration expenses was sought for ten years (2009–2019).
In the case of Organization A, the legal charges were obtained for
2012–2013 and 2018–2019, and in the case of Organization B,
they were obtained for 2009–2010 to 2016–2017. As per the RTI
© ASCE 04522025-4
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025
response, data were not received for periods beyond these ranges
because of some changes in cost accounting methods. In addition,
there were some difficulties in obtaining the latest data due to
sponse provided by Organization A, dispute review board charges
were also included under legal expenses.
Such information was sought from other public sector organiza-
tions as well. However, some organizations denied providing infor-
mation, and in other cases, the organizations provided projectwise/
regionwise data, which may not represent the whole picture. In some
instances, the data provided were incomplete. The data provided
by Organizations A and B contained all the relevant information
required for analysis. The information on infrastructure contribution
was obtained from their respective annual reports.
To ensure the generalizability of the legalization trends, data on
annual legal charges incurred by 115 real estate and infrastructure
construction firms, expressed as a percentage of total annual ex-
penses, were extracted from the database of the Centre for Monitor-
ing Indian Economy (CMIE), a financial database that is widely
used by the government of India (Ministry of Finance 2018) and
researchers (Cyril and Singla 2021) to perform financial analysis of
firms. According to CMIE, legal charges reported by publicly listed
firms include fees paid to legal advisors, law firms, and so forth for
providing legal advice and related services (this excludes fees paid
to auditors for advice sought under company law matters) (CMIE
2022). Legal charges incurred by the firms in the last 10 years
(2011 to 2020) are graphically represented to depict the trend.
Instead of infrastructure output as shown in Eq. (5), legal expenses
are expressed as the ratio of total expenses, because the firms con-
sidered for analysis were involved in varied construction operations
across the real estate and infrastructure sectors.
Stage 3: Illustration of Latent Knowledge in
Court Judgments
Last, knowledge potential of case law is illustrated by highlighting
the key aspects of a few court judgments on price escalation and
liquidated damages. Court judgments were downloaded from the
supreme court cases (SCC) Online database, containing court judg-
ments. Keywords such as “escalation” and “liquidated damages”
along with “construction” and “projects” were used to extract rel-
evant judgments from the Supreme Court of India and various high
courts listed in the database. The judgments were then reviewed,
and key learnings were manually extracted from the text.
Questionnaire Survey
The questionnaire aimed at measuring the extent of agreement of
working professionals on the importance of legal knowledge in
managing contracts and preventing the legalization of construction
disputes. The questionnaire was sent to about 250 working profes-
sionals purposely sampled based on their direct (contract managers
and contract administrators) or indirect association with contract
management (project managers, procurement managers, and super-
vising engineers, among others). The exact number of working pro-
fessionals approached for the survey cannot be determined because
of the snowball sampling technique adopted to garner further re-
sponses. A random sampling technique was not adopted because it
was difficult to identify a clear sampling population (Sambasivan
and Soon 2007) due to the nature of the survey, which required
respondents with experience in dealing directly or indirectly with
contractual matters. The social media platform LinkedIn was
also used to post the questionnaire link to targeted professionals.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 1. Demographic details of the survey participants and corresponding questions, please refer to Table 2) and the hy-
Demographic details Frequency Percentage (%) pothesized mean. Mean was hypothesized as 3, a value in the Likert
scale corresponding to the Occasionally (in the Never–Always
Organization type
scale) or Neutral (in the Strongly Disagree–Strongly Agree scale)
Client/owner 34 32
Contractor 43 41 options in the questionnaire. The significance was determined
Project management/technical consultant 27 25 based on the p value, in which the null hypothesis was rejected
Other 2 2 whenever the p value was less than an alpha level of 0.05 (in other
106 100 words, the significance level was set at 5%). The null and alterna-
Organization affiliation tive hypotheses means and p values and the final results are shown
Government 39 37 in Table 2. The questionnaire responses were then checked for reli-
Private 67 63 ability using Cronbach’s alpha test. Survey questions 7 to 17 dealt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

106 100 with various aspects of legal knowledge and training; hence, they
Work experience
were grouped into one when the reliability statistics were measured.
<5 years 14 14
5–10 years 11 10
The Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.60. Although the reliability level
10–15 years 18 17 was on the lower side, a value between 0.6 and 0.9 is said to be
15–20 years 11 10 sufficient and generally acceptable (Shen et al. 2017; Tabish and
20–25 years 19 18 Jha 2012; Ursachi et al. 2015). The Cronbach’s alpha value can be
25–30 years 18 17 expected to be on the lower side when there is a certain degree of
>30 years 15 14 inherent heterogeneity in the constructs within the group (Tavakol
106 100 and Dennick 2011). Therefore, although some improvements in
Highest educational qualification reliability values could be seen by deleting some questions, no fur-
Diploma 2 2 ther attempts were undertaken to improve the value of Cronbach’s
Bachelor’s degree 39 37
alpha.
Master’s degree 63 59
Doctorate 2 2 Because the responses exhibited nonnormal characteristics,
106 100 a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test (nonparametric test) was
Exposure to special certification programs in law also performed, and the results were similar, except for those for
Yes 17 16 survey question 4, for which the nonparametric test indicated reject
No 87 82 null hypothesis (as against retain in the parametric ANOVA test).
Not applicable 2 2 However, on a conservative side, the results of the parametric
106 100 ANOVA were retained. Regarding the second stage, ANOVA with
a pairwise post-hoc test was performed, and the results are dis-
cussed in the following.
Therefore, a purposeful snowball sampling technique was used so In terms of the various subgroups under organization type (cli-
that respondents with relevant backgrounds could participate in the ent, contractor, and consultant), there were no significant differen-
survey (Rameezdeen and Rajapakse 2007). A total of 106 valid re- ces among their mean values (in one case, there was a significant
sponses were received. difference; however, all the mean values were less than the value of
The first part of the questionnaire captured the respondents’ dem-
the hypothesized mean, in the same direction as that of the overall
ographic details (organization type and affiliation, role, professional
mean). There was no significant difference in their means in the case
background, highest educational background, and overall experi-
of the various subgroups under organization affiliation (government
ence) (seven questions). The second section captured existing con-
and private). In terms of subgroups under experience, except for
tract administration practices (six closed-ended questions), and the
survey question 5, there was no significant difference among the
third section contained questions on legal knowledge and training
means. On observing the post-hoc analysis results for question 5,
(13 closed-ended questions). Finally, three open-ended questions
it was seen that the mean of the responses from respondents with
were asked to capture the feedback and opinions of the participants.
20–25 years of experience was significantly different from the
A five-point Likert scale was used to gather the responses for
hypothesized mean of 3 (mean value ¼ 3.84). In the case of the
most of the closed-ended questions. Depending on the questions
various subgroups under exposure to special certification programs
posed, the Never–Always (Never-5, Rarely-4, Occasionally-3,
on law (yes, no, and not applicable), there were no significant dif-
Frequently-2, Always-1) or the Strongly Disagree–Strongly Agree
ferences among their mean values (in one case, there was a signifi-
scales (Strongly Disagree-5, Disagree-4, Neutral-3, Agree-2,
cant difference; however, all the mean values were less than the
Strongly Agree-1) were used. The questionnaire concluded with
value of the hypothesized mean, in the same direction as that of
open-ended questions aimed at understanding the training prefer-
the overall mean). For educational qualification, there were no sig-
ences and feedback of the participants. Interested participants were
nificant differences among the various subgroups (bachelor’s degree,
given the option to enter their contact details so that we could
master’s degree, doctorate, and diploma), except for survey ques-
get in touch with them for follow-up studies. A summary of the
tions 5, 12, 14, and 16. In the case of survey questions 12, 14, and
respondents’ demographic details is provided in Table 1.
16, all the means were aligned in the direction of the overall mean
despite the differences. In the case of question 5, respondents with
Results a master’s degree tended slightly toward the disagree side (mean
value: 3.16), and respondents with a bachelor’s degree tended to-
Survey results corresponding to objectives 1 and 2 (as defined ear- ward the agree side (mean value: 2.58), and the difference between
lier in the section on “Research Gap Analysis, Problem Statement their means was significant. The one-way Kruskal-Wallis test, the
and Objectives”) are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. In the first stage, as nonparametric equivalent of ANOVA, was performed to verify the
explained in the methodology section, a one-sample t-test was per- validity of the ANOVA results. The results were identical except
formed to understand any significant differences between the mean for the educational qualification group, in which the test indi-
value of all 106 responses for each question (for question numbers cated rejection of the null hypothesis for survey questions 7 and 13

© ASCE 04522025-5 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Case-law-based training need and availability.

Fig. 3. Experiential learning.

© ASCE 04522025-6 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

 © ASCE

Table 2. Results of the one-sample t-test

Is the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

p value
Survey question Null hypothesis (H o ) Alternate hypothesis (H a ) Mean significant? Result
1. How often do engineers (who deal with contracts) involve The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 3.43 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
lawyers/legal experts while resolving claims and disputes in the different from occasionally. from occasionally, toward never. retain alternative hypothesis
initial stages of claims/disputes?
2. How often do engineers (who deal with contracts) involve The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.48 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
lawyers/legal experts while resolving claims and disputes in the different from occasionally. from occasionally, toward always. retain alternative hypothesis
advanced stages of claims/disputes?
3. In your opinion, do you feel that engineers (who deal with The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.69 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
contracts) consider that court case law/precedence are required only different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
for arbitration and litigation and not required for project-level claim
management activities?
4. While submitting/defending claims, how often do engineers The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.82 No Retain null hypothesis
(who deal with contracts) consider the possibility of arbitration different from occasionally. from occasionally, toward never.
and litigation?
5. There is a hesitation when it comes to writing contractual letters The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.92 No Retain null hypothesis
or while issuing notices pertaining to delays/breach of contract. different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree.
To what extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?
6. How often do you think a party loses in arbitration/litigation The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.03 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
due to poor substantiation of claim? (Example: poor documentation, different from occasionally. from occasionally, toward always. retain alternative hypothesis
lack of evidence, no contemporaneous records, lack of timely
04522025-7

contractual action, etc.)

7. Most of the contract managers in construction projects have an The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 1.90 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
engineering background. To what extent do you agree/disagree with different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
this statement?
8. Legal interpretation of construction contracts is often challenging The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.46 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
to engineers. To what extent do you agree/disagree with this different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
statement?
9. Have you ever felt that knowledge of legal provisions/case law The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 1.94 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
could have improved the prospects of resolving disputes in your favor? different from occasionally. from occasionally, toward always. retain alternative hypothesis
10. Engineers (who deal with contracts) are not aware where to get The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.29 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
case law that can help in dealing with a given situation. To what different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?
11. In your opinion, do you feel that engineers (who deal with The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.58 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
contracts) consider that use of court case law/precedence are a different from occasionally. from occasionally, toward always. retain alternative hypothesis
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

domain of lawyers and beyond their understanding?

12. Engineers typically learn contract management through The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 1.91 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
experience rather than through their professional education. different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
To what extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?
13. In cases of contract management, experience-based learning is a The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 2.01 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
trial and error approach; this is risky, especially in high value different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
disputes, when compared with a professional and systematic
approach. To what extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?
14. In addition to experience-based learning, professional training The responses are not significantly The responses are significantly different 1.77 Yes Reject null hypothesis and
in law (as part of engineering education) makes an engineer more different from neutral. from neutral, toward strongly agree. retain alternative hypothesis
confident and better prepared in dealing with contractual claims and
disputes, which in turn results in a favorable outcome. To what
extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

 retain alternative hypothesis

retain alternative hypothesis

retain alternative hypothesis

(in addition to questions 5, 12, 14, and 16 as indicated in its para-

Reject null hypothesis and

Reject null hypothesis and

Reject null hypothesis and

metric counterpart).
Stage 3 (analysis of legalization trends) results are shown in

Result
Figs. 4–6. It is evident that firms’ legal expenses are increasing with
every passing year and with increasing economic activity under-
taken by a firm, indicating that firms tend to approach courts not-
withstanding the disadvantages of binding and adjudicative dispute
resolution methods (arbitration and litigation). The key points on
price escalation and liquidated damages, as extracted from the court
judgments, are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
significant?
p value
Is the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Discussion of Results

A prima facie analysis of Figs. 2 and 3 aids in appreciating the

Mean
3.83

3.72

1.85

overall problem regarding legal knowledge percolation. As indi-

cated by the literature review, there are two formal mechanisms of
training: (1) professional education (prior knowledge), and (2) on-
The responses are significantly different

The responses are significantly different

The responses are significantly different

from neutral, toward strongly disagree.

the-job training. Experience-based learning is yet another nonfor-

from neutral, toward strongly agree.

mal learning that researchers have highlighted. An analysis of the

Alternate hypothesis (H a )

from occasionally, toward never.

survey responses indicates that there is another way of learning—

through one’s efforts, or, in other words, self-learning. However,
in all cases, learning and training gaps are evident. In the case of
professional (prior knowledge) training, respondents opine that
most contract managers are from an engineering background;
however, only 11% of the respondents opined that engineering cur-
ricula provide sufficient exposure to the knowledge required to
deal with construction claims and disputes. Therefore, there is a
gap in terms of professional knowledge. This observation seems
logical, because even in developed economies, researchers have
recommended looking at curricula to consider including contract
and law courses that can impart practical legal training (Arneson
The responses are not significantly

The responses are not significantly

The responses are not significantly

and Ozbek 2020).

While about 72% of the respondents (76 out of 106) agreed
Null hypothesis (H o )

different from occasionally.

that case-law-based training could have helped in managing their

different from neutral.

different from neutral.

disputes better, only 10% (11 out of 106 respondents) indicated

that their organizations offered regular case-law-based knowledge
and training, indicating an on-the-job training gap. In their article
on further legal training, Quapp and Holschemacher (2020) high-
lighted the importance of continuous capacity-building programs
for working professionals. Case law is essential for such training
programs (Lee et al. 2021), and the respondents acknowledged this
(question 9).
For those who may be self-motivated to understand case law and
dealing with contracts. To what extent do you agree/disagree with this
16. Does your organization conduct training programs for engineers

17. For better understanding and preparation, learning from landmark

contractual claims and disputes in construction projects. To what

(who deal with contracts) on understanding court judgments and

15. Engineering syllabi provide sufficient exposure to deal with

contract management guidelines and made accessible to engineers

apply the knowledge gained for managing contracts (claims and

judgments of various courts should be simplified in the form of

disputes) better, the opportunity seems to be muted, because a sim-

plified version of case-law outcomes is not readily available or
accessible in their organizations (only 35% of the respondents were
positive about their organizations maintaining case-law learning
extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?

repositories). A total of 42.1% of the respondents (45 out of 106)

conveyed that their organizations did not maintain any repository of
case law or related learning that could be referred to by contract
managers while dealing with claims and disputes. A total of 22.4%
(24 out of 106 respondents) were not even aware of such reposi-
tories in their organizations. Learning repositories are important,
because about 85% of the respondents (90 out of 106) opined that
landmark judgments and case law should be simplified to facilitate
case-law interpretation?
Table 2. (Continued.)

easy understanding. However, as a word of caution, it should be

kept in mind that self-learning without professional guidance can
Survey question

produce counterproductive results. Along these lines, it is evident

that when engineers learn through experience rather than being pro-
statement?

fessionally equipped (question 12—85% of the respondents were

in agreement), the learning process becomes a trial-and-error ap-
proach, which is risky, especially in high-value disputes (81% of

© ASCE 04522025-8 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Legalization trends in Organization A. (Results calculated using data from NHAI 2020; NHPC Limited 20172017.)

Fig. 5. Legalization trends in Organization B. (Results calculated using data from NHAI 2020; NHPC Limited 2017.)

the respondents were in agreement with the risk-prone nature of
experiential learning—question 13). A total of 89% (94 out of 106
respondents—question 14) confirmed the importance of having
case-law-based training in addition to knowledge gained through
experience. Therefore, there is a gap in terms of self-learning efforts
as well.
Hypothesis testing results for the foregoing statistical percent-
ages can be found in Table 2. Overall, Figs. 2 and 3 address the first
and the second objectives; while it is clear that at a professional
level the importance of case-law-based training programs is real-
ized, easy-to-access and easy-to-understand case-law-based learn-
ing and training opportunities are limited, and this affects capacity
building. Further observations from the study are discussed in the
following.
Similarities and Differences in the Perceptions of
Respondent Groups
The survey highlighted that the legal interpretation of construction
contracts is often challenging to engineers (question 8), and the
respondents agreed that parties lose arbitration and litigation cases
due to poor substantiation of claims (question 6). Moreover, it ap-
pears that the respondents, while submitting or replying to claims,
only occasionally consider the possibility of legalization of dis-
putes (question 4). The results indicated the presence of potential
issues at the project level in the initial stages of disputes, in which
engineers and managers, most of whom are from an engineering
background (question 7), are involved. However, unclear agree-
ment regarding the “hesitation to write contractual letters or issue
notices” (question 5) is quite surprising. Therefore, the ANOVA
post-hoc results were analyzed.
The test revealed that respondents with a bachelor’s degree
(in engineering) and respondents who did not have a specialized
certificate in law were inclined toward the agreement side (means
of 2.59 and 2.85, respectively) with regard to the prevalence of
hesitation in writing contractual letters or issue notices. However,
respondents in the experience bracket of 20–25 years did not in-
dicate any hesitation in writing contractual letters (mean value:
3.84); this differed significantly from respondents in the experience

© ASCE 04522025-9 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Legalization trends from CMIE data.

Table 3. Illustrations of some of the important matters related to price escalation clauses that various courts deal with in India
Situation description
Applicability of escalation compensation in the extended period of a
contract when a contract is silent about it
The parties have agreed that the contractor would continue the work
under contract rates through a letter or a supplementary agreement
(or during extension of time discussions). However, there is credible
evidence for the contractor’s claim that the supplementary agreement was
signed under duress or undue influence (or the supplementary agreement
was signed under protest by the contractor). Is escalation payable if
claimed by the contractor?
Through a supplementary agreement (or extension of time agreement),
the parties have agreed that the contractor would voluntarily continue the
work under contract rates. However, there is no evidence of undue
influence, fraud, or duress. Is escalation payable if claimed by the
contractor?
It is expressly agreed in the contract that there will be no escalation
compensation in the extended period of the contract, even if the delays
are not attributable to the contractor. Is escalation payable if claimed by
the contractor?
Contractor submits fresh claims for compensation after a full and final
settlement. Is this a valid claim?
Escalation compensation in the event of a delayed start of a project
(after a letter of intent is awarded and the contract agreement is
signed after a long gap). Is it a valid claim?
Escalation compensation when both parties are attributable for the delays
Validity of upper caps in escalation clauses
Claiming for escalation compensation beyond what is entitled as per the
formula agreed between the parties
The “Instruction to Bidders” section of the tender document contains a
clause restricting price escalation claims. However, no such clause is
available in the agreed contract. Is escalation payable in this scenario?
Case reference
P.M. Paul v. Union of India, 1989
The Chief Engineer (Construction) and Anr v. Sri Swarna and Co., 2019
K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) v. State of Kerala and Anr 2007
The Chief Engineer (Construction) and Anr v. Sri Swarna and Co., 2019
The Chief Engineer (Construction) and Anr v. Sri Swarna and Co., 2019
Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Divisional Railway Manager-Works
Indian Railways and Others, 2007
Delhi Development Authority v. M/s S Jetely, 2011;
State of West Bengal v. Afcons Pauling (India) Ltd., 2013
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Constructions, 2019
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Fabtech Works and Construction and
Another, 2019
Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation v. Labh
Construction and Industries Ltd., 2019
Express Infrastructure Private Ltd. v. BL Kashyap and Sons Ltd., 2019
Ramnath International Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. v. Duggal Constructions (India)
Ltd., 2011
M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s HCC Ltd., 2014
Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd., 2006
Gammon India Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, 2019

© ASCE 04522025-10 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025

 Table 4. Illustrations of some of the important matters on liquidated damages clauses that various Courts deal with in India
Situation description
If the employer provides an EOT without levying liquidated
damages (LD), then can it be considered an implicit admission by
the employer that the delays are attributable to it?
Should the party give proof indicating the extent of damage in case
of recovery of LD from sums due to the contractor?
When there is an LD clause in the contract, can unliquidated
damages be claimed separately?
The burden of proving reasonableness/unreasonableness
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Power of courts to reject/award LD claims
What should be the mode of recovery of LD if the employer wants
to recover it?
Is the issue of breach and liability automatically excluded from
arbitration when quantification of liquidated damages is excluded
from arbitration?
bracket of 15–20 years, above 30 years, and less than 5 years.
While this may seem contradictory, on a more profound observa-
tion, it is observed that the respondents who are contract managers
with post-graduation qualification are highest in number (5 out of
18) in the 20–25-year experience bracket when compared to
the number of such respondents in the experience groups of 15–
20 years (2 out of 11), above 30 years (1 out of 15), and less than
5 years (none who are contract managers with post-graduation).
Overall, it is evident that there is a hesitation to write contrac-
tual letters and create contemporaneous records, at least among
those who do not have specialized training in law or have only
a bachelor’s degree. It is also evident that purely experience-based
decision making is prone to risks (question 13). In addition, the
respondents agreed that they do not involve lawyers in the initial
stages of claims and disputes (question 1) and that legal experts are
involved only in the advanced stages (question 2).
Establishing the Study’s Relevance
With contract engineers not sure about writing contractual letters
and creating contemporaneous records or involving legal experts,
claims and disputes are left without adequate legal protection in the
initial stages, making them vulnerable to arbitration and litigation.
Therefore, along with experience, professional training in law can
make working professionals more confident in dealing with situa-
tions leading to contractual claims and disputes, resulting in favor-
able outcomes (question 14). It is relevant to note that one of the
survey respondents wrote, “Engineers, if provided with/trained with
professional construction laws and cases, may be able to handle
the day to day issues more efficiently and can prevent in developing
larger disputes and also help in managing the contractual issues and
disputes well.” While the realization of the importance of case law-
based training is evident, it comes with a price, because the reali-
zation is based on bitter experiences in lost legal battles (questions
12 and 13). Had the professionals involved in dispute management
been exposed to legal thinking, the chances of favorable settlements
would have been higher (question 9). In line with observations from
previous researchers in this domain, we find that the legal discon-
nect seems to be glaring (Evans 2012; Padroth et al. 2017) in the
field as well. In other words, case-law-based legal knowledge per-
colation seems negligible. However, the willingness to learn from
case law is evident (question 17).
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025
Case reference
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Wig Brothers Builders and
Engineers Ltd., 2009
State of West Bengal v. Afcons Pauling (India) Ltd., 2013
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Lloyds Steel Industries, 2007
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Fabtech Works and Construction and
Another, 2019
National Highways Authority of India v. Bridge and Roof Co. Ltd., 2017
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Fabtech Works and Construction and
Another., 2019
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Artson Engineering Ltd., 2015
Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation v. Labh
Construction and Industries Ltd., 2019
GAIL (India) Ltd. v. Geo Miller and Company Ltd., 2011
GAIL (India) Ltd. v. Geo Miller and Company Ltd., 2011
JG Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., 2011
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Motorola India Ltd., 2009
Even from a macro perspective, Figs. 4–6 indicate the sheer size
of the legal expenses incurred by firms (expressed as a ratio of their
output or total expenses) and their growing trend. Along with grow-
ing infrastructure investments by the government of India (Sethi
2022), the growing legal expenses of construction firms highlight
the need to streamline dispute resolution processes in the construc-
tion sector. The good news is that there was a realization among the
respondents that knowledge of legal provisions/case law could have
improved the prospects of resolving disputes in their favor (ques-
tion 9). Therefore, a demand situation is prevalent in the industry.
However, there appears to be a dearth of relevant, easy-to-use case-
law-based knowledge, both on the professional education front and
on the on-the-job training and capacity-building front.
Developing Case-Law-Based Training Content
Case law is a rich source of information that can provide valuable
insights into both procedural and substantive aspects of contract
management. Procedural aspects refer to the administration of con-
tracts; substantive aspects deal with legal entitlement to the claim
amount in a disputed matter. To successfully wade through the
binding dispute resolution process and emerge victorious, engi-
neers and managers must ensure that their claims are meritorious
both in terms of procedures and legal entitlement (Hewitt 2016).
Case law provides invaluable lessons on the sequence of events
that ultimately resulted in a dispute being judged in favor of the
claimant or the defendant. However, case law files are typically
lengthy, containing various legal terms and cross references, and
specific professional skills imparted by a law school are required
to decipher them (Gerber 2009). For engineers who are not for-
mally trained in the law, legal training and access to practical
case-law insights that can help them in everyday contract manage-
ment are important. While a contract manager cannot be a replace-
ment for a professionally-trained legal expert, a contract manager
needs to identify possible legal issues in a project and respond in a
time-bound manner (Gerber 2009). Therefore, this information
must be gleaned from the facts of the case (available in the public
domain in the form of a judgment copy), and information must be
succinctly presented to the engineers directly or indirectly in-
volved with contracts. For example, many questions related to the
interpretation of contracts with regard to the payment of escala-
tion or liquidated damages are dealt with in some of the critical
04522025-11 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 judgments of various high courts and the Supreme Court of India.
An illustrative list of aspects dealt with by courts is summarized in
Tables 3 and 4. Knowledge of legislative acts alone cannot facili-
tate the understanding of the contract management issues discussed
in column 1 of Tables 3 and 4, and it is here that case-law-based
training modules can potentially guide contract managers on pro-
cedural aspects. Learning and training modules developed from
court judgments must reach professionals who are intent on self-
and experience-based learning. This can be achieved when learning
from case law is distilled and simplified by a team of techno-legal
experts and guidelines for day-to-day contract management (for pro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fessionals from various roles) are made available in online reposi-
tories accessible to employees.
The efforts by India’s Central Public Works Department, the
government’s public construction wing, are worth noting. Critical
learning from landmark court cases are uploaded on their website
in the form of legal note circulars. Good practices such as these
must be encouraged, emulated, and publicized in other depart-
ments and in the private sector. At a public level, the National
Institute for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), an apex policy-
making body in India, has developed the Indian Infrastructure
Body of Knowledge to build the capacities of engineers and pro-
fessionals involved in nation-building (NITI AaYOG 2021). Such
efforts present an excellent opportunity to incorporate learning
from court cases and can ensure that such information reaches the
grassroots level.
While the potential is immense, academicians, legal experts, and
practitioners must come forward to collaborate and develop train-
ing modules that are based on real-life cases and court judgments so
that trained engineers and managers can, after carefully scrutinizing
the facts of disputes, interpret contracts in a manner that is legally
sustainable. The study has two major limitations. First, the partic-
ipants belong to one particular jurisdiction, and second, only a few
court cases are discussed. However, considering that the objective
of highlighting findings from court judgments is to illustrate the
potential of case-law-based training, the analysis seems adequate.
Conclusion
Four conclusions can be drawn from this research, in line with the
research objectives. First, there is a gap in terms of expectations
and opportunities for case-law-based capacity building, both at
the professional education and current career levels. Second, pure
experience-based learning can lead to a risky trial and error ap-
proaches; opportunities for self-learning are also muted. Overall,
it was observed that there are gaps in prior knowledge, on-the-job
training, experience-based learning, and self-learning opportuni-
ties. Third, the advantages of case-law-based training and the grow-
ing trend of legalization of disputes both indicate that the capacity
building of engineers and managers in the field can potentially help
reduce the vast sums of money spent on taking disputed matters to
arbitration and litigation. With an exhaustive judicial database con-
taining landmark court judgments and helpful precedents, research-
ers, academicians, and practitioners can collaborate and embark on
developing training modules and contract management guidelines
that can help contract managers protect their organizations’ finan-
cial and legal interests.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be
© ASCE 04522025-12
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025
provided with restrictions (survey responses containing the identi-
fication details of respondents are confidential).
References
List of Cases
Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Annapurna Constructions, 2019 SCC
OnLine Jhar 2934, Jharkhand High Court.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Motorola India Ltd., 2009 (2) SCC 337,
Supreme Court of India.
Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation v. Labh
Construction and Industries Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8236, Delhi
High Court.
Delhi Development Authority v. M/s S S Jetely, 2011 SCC OnLine Del
1195: (2011) 2 Arb LR 213, Delhi High Court.
Director General Central Reserve Police Force v. Fibroplast Marine Pvt.
Ltd., 2022, O.M.P. (COMM) 511/2019 & IA Nos. 17282/2019 &
17283/2019, Delhi High Court.
Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 751, Supreme
Court of India.
Express Infrastructure Private Limited v. BL Kashyap and Sons Limited,
O.P. No. 566 of 2019 and A. No. 5076 of 2019, Madras High Court.
GAIL (India) Ltd. v. Geo Miller and Company Ltd., FAO (OS) No. 240/2008,
(2011), Delhi High Court.
Gammon India Ltd. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, O.P.No.679 of 2010, 2019, Madras High Court.
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. v. Duggal Constructions (India)
Ltd., (2011) FAO (OS) No. 294 of 2001, Delhi High Court.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Artson Engineering Ltd., Arbitration Petition
No. 408 of 2005, (2015), Bombay High Court.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Fabtech Works and Construction and
Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 38764: (2020) 1 Mad LJ 52: (2021)
2 CTC 876, Madras High Court.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Lloyds Steel Industries, 2007 SCC OnLine
Del 1169: (2007) 144 DLT 659: (2008) 3 AIR Kant R (NOC 412) 149:
(2007) 4 Arb LR 84, Delhi High Court.
JG Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3349 of
2005, Supreme Court of India, 2011.
K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) v. State of Kerala and Anr (2007) 13 SCC 43:
2006 SCC OnLine SC 1318, Supreme Court of India.
M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s HCC Ltd., 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 3507: (2014) 211 DLT 656, Delhi High Court.
National Highways Authority of India v. Bridge and Roof Co. Ltd., O.M.P.
1203/2013 and O.M.P. 248/2014 (2017), Delhi High Court.
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Wig Brothers Builders and
Engineers Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 911: ILR (2009) 4 Del 663:
(2009) 160 DLT 642: (2009) 2 Arb LR 238: (2010) 95 CLA (SN) 12,
Delhi High Court.
P.M. Paul v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (I) SCC 368, Supreme Court of
India.
PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar
Port Trust Tuticorin and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 508, Supreme
Court of India.
Ramnath International Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2007) SCC
453: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1377, Supreme Court of India.
Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Divisional Railway Manager-
Works Indian Railways and Others, 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 610:
(2007) 4 LW 379: (2007) 5 CTC 17: (2007) 5 Mad LJ 257: (2007)
4 Arb LR 261 (DB), Madras High Court.
State of West Bengal v. Afcons Pauling (India) Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine
Cal 16533, 2013.
The Chief Engineer (Construction) and Anr v. Sri Swarna and Co.,
O.P. Nos. 87 and 88 of 2014, 168 of 2015 & 446 of 2016, Madras High
Court, 2019.
List of Statutes
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Act Number 26 of 1996, India.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Works Cited
Abdul-Malak, M.-A., and S. Khalife. 2017. “Models for the administration
of structured construction contract notices.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut.
Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943
-4170.0000228.
Abdul-Malak, M.-A. U., and J. M. K. Hamie. 2019. “Proposed framework
for the rendering of construction contract document interpretations by
engineering professionals.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
11 (3): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000305.
Alter, K., and J. Koontz. 1996. “Curriculum development and continu-
ing education in project management for the specialty subcontracting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
industry.” J. Constr. Educ. 1 (2): 66–78.
Arain, F. M. 2009. “Leveraging on information technology to teach con-
struction law to built environment students: A Knowledge-Based System
(KBS) approach.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 14 (2): 77–102.
Arneson, E., and M. E. Ozbek. 2020. “Mock arbitration as experiential
legal education for construction management students.” J. Leg. Aff.
Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 04520010. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000384.
Axten, J., H. Colledge, I. Davies, J. Guckian, K. Hiepko, H. I.-H. Mir,
and E. Silke. 2021. Operating in uncertain times—Regional analysis of
claims and dispute resolution. London: HKA.
Axten, J., I. Davies, E. Silke, H. Colledge, J. Guckian, and H. I.-H. Mir.
2020. Engineering and construction: A regional analysis of causation.
London: HKA.
Barnas, J., O. Kania, and K. Barnas. 2019. “Framework for teaching con-
struction law in a rapidly changing legal environment.” World Trans.
Eng. Technol. Educ. 17 (3): 362–366.
Bell, M., P. Gerber, and P. Evans. 2014. “Building bridges in the classroom:
A view from the academy.” Build. Constr. Law J. 30 (1865): 24–34.
Brooker, P. 1999. “Survey of construction lawyers’ attitudes and practice in
the use of ADR in contractor’s disputes.” Construct. Manage. Econ.
17 (6): 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461999371097.
Chan, E. H., H. C. Suen, and C. K. Chan. 2006. “MAUT—Based dispute
resolution selection model prototype for international construction proj-
ects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (5): 444–451. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:5(444).
Chemin, M. 2010. “Does court speed shape economic activity? Evidence
from a court reform in India.” J. Law Econ. Organ. 28 (3): 460–485.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewq014.
Cheung, S. O., K. K. W. Cheung, and H. C. H. Suen. 2004. “Web-based
learning in engineering education: A portal for teaching of construction
contracts.” Int. J. Eng. Educ. 20 (1): 124–138.
CMIE (Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy). 2022. Prowess IQ data-
base dictionary. Washington, DC: CMIE.
Cyril, E. J., and H. K. Singla. 2021. “The mediating effect of productivity
on profitability in Indian construction firms.” J. Adv. Manage. Res.
18 (1): 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-05-2020-0092.
Demachkieh, F., S. Khalife, M. A. Abdul-Malak, and F. Hamzeh. 2020.
“Considerations for filing global construction claims: Legal perspec-
tive.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (3): 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000393.
Diao, C., R. Liang, D. Sharma, and Q. Cui. 2020. “Litigation risk detection
using twitter data.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (1):
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000356.
Dierdorff, E. C., and E. A. Surface. 2008. “Assessing training needs: Do
work experience and capability matter?” Hum. Perform. 21 (1): 28–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280701522072.
El-adaway, I. H., A. S. Ezeldin, and J. K. Yates. 2009. “Arbitral tribunal
proceedings case study: Egyptian large-scale construction project.”
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 1 (3): 147–153. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1943-4162(2009)1:3(147).
Evans, P. 2012. “Avoidance of construction disputes through legal
knowledge.” Queenland Roads 12 (14): 13–17.
Fawzy, S. A., and I. H. El-adaway. 2012. “Contract administration guidelines
for managing conflicts, claims, and disputes under world bank–Funded
projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 4 (4): 101–110.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000091.
© ASCE 04522025-13
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025
Fenn, P., D. Lowe, and C. Speck. 1997. “Conflict and dispute in construc-
tion.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 15 (6): 513–518. https://doi.org/10
.1080/014461997372719.
Gerber, P. 2009. “How to stop engineers from becoming ‘bush lawyers’:
The art of teaching law to engineering and construction students.” J. Leg.
Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 1 (4): 179–188. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)1943-4162(2009)1:4(179).
Gerber, P. 2010. “The teaching of construction law and the practice of con-
struction law: Never the twain shall meet?” Legal Educ. Rev. 20 (1–2):
59–83.
Gerber, P., and D. Serra. 2011. “Construction litigation: Are we doing it
better?” Melbourne Univ. Law Rev. 35 (7): 933–970.
Hamie, J., and M. A. Abdul-Malak. 2018. “Rules-based approach for
construction contract documents interpretation.” In Proc., Construction
Research Congress 2018: Construction Project Management—Selected
Papers from the Construction Research Congress 2018. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Haugen, T., and A. Singh. 2015. “Dispute resolution strategy selection.”
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 7 (3): 05014004. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000160.
Hewitt, A. 2016. Construction claims and responses: Effective writing and
presentation. New York: Wiley.
Iyer, K. C., and K. N. Satyanarayana. 2002. “Final and binding power
clauses in Indian construction contracts.” Int. J. Project Manage. 20 (1):
13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00028-4.
Jagannathan, M., and V. S. K. Delhi. 2020. “Litigation in construction
contracts: Literature review.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
12 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000342.
Jagannathan, M., and V. S. K. Delhi. 2021. “Identifying focus areas to
decode the decision to litigate contractual disputes in construction.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 29 (8): 2976–2998. https://doi.org/10
.1108/ECAM-01-2021-0014.
Jelodar, M. B., T. W. Yiu, and S. Wilkinson. 2016. “Dispute manifestation
and relationship quality in practice.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng.
Constr. 8 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170
.0000171.
Kisi, K. P., N. Lee, R. Kayastha, and J. Kovel. 2020. “Alternative dispute
resolution practices in international road construction contracts.” J. Leg.
Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 04520001. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000373.
Lee, J., Y. Ham, and J. S. Yi. 2021. “Construction disputes and associated
contractual knowledge discovery using unstructured text-heavy data:
Legal cases in the United Kingdom.” Sustainability 13 (16): 45.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169403.
Levin, P. 1998. Construction contract claims, changes & dispute
resolution. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Levin, P. 2016. Construction contract claims, changes and dispute
resolution. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Liu, X., M. Miao, and R. Liu. 2020. “Litigation and corporate risk taking:
Evidence from Chinese listed firms.” In International review of law &
economics. New York: Elsevier.
Marzouk, M., L. El-Mesteckawi, and M. El-Said. 2011. “Dispute resolution
aided tool for construction projects in Egypt.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage.
17 (1): 63–71. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2011.554165.
Marzouk, M. M., and T. I. El-Rasas. 2014. “Analyzing delay causes in
Egyptian construction projects.” J. Adv. Res. 5 (1): 49–55. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jare.2012.11.005.
McDaniel, M. A., F. L. Schmidt, and J. E. Hunter. 1988. “Job experience
correlates of job performance.” J. Appl. Psychol. 73 (2): 327–330.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.327.
McLernon, T. 2009. “Exploring student engagement in construction law
education.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 1 (2): 80–85.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1943-4162(2009)1:2(80).
Ministry of Finance. 2018. Economic survey of India. New Delhi, India:
Ministry of Finance.
Mitropoulos, P., and H. Gregory. 2001. “Model for understanding, prevent-
ing, and resolving project disputes.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 127 (3):
223–231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:3(223).
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Moza, A., and V. K. Paul. 2016. “Review of the effectiveness of arbitra-
tion.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (1): 1–9. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000204.
NHAI (National Highways Authority of India). 2020. Annual Report
2019–2020. New Delhi, India: NHAI.
NHPC Ltd. 2017. 41st Annual Report 2016–2017. Faridabad, India: NHPC
Ltd.
NITI AaYOG. 2021. The Indian infrastructure body of knowledge.
New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ogunbiyi, O., J. S. Goulding, and A. Oladapo. 2014. “An empirical study of
the impact of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction
in the UK.” Constr. Innov. 14 (1): 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-08-2012-0045.
Othman, A. A. E. 2013. “Investigating the competency of property develop-
ment graduates towards satisfying the requirements of the construction
industry in South Africa: The case of the university of KwaZulu-Natal.”
Int. J. Constr. Manage. 13 (4): 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599
.2013.10878230.
Padroth, C., P. R. Davis, and M. Morrissey. 2017. “Contract information
asymmetry: Legal disconnect within the project team.” J. Leg. Aff. Dis-
pute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
LA.1943-4170.0000231.
Procurement Policy Division NITI Aayog. 2021. General Instructions on
procurement and project management. New Delhi, India: Government
of India.
Quapp, U., and K. Holschemacher. 2020. “Further legal training for archi-
tects, civil engineers, and construction managers.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute
Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (1): 05019009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
LA.1943-4170.0000347.
Rameezdeen, R., and C. Rajapakse. 2007. “Contract interpretation: The
impact of readability.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 25 (7): 729–737.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190601099228.
Sambasivan, M., and Y. W. Soon. 2007. “Causes and effects of delays
in Malaysian construction industry.” Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (5):
517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.007.
Sethi, K. 2022. “Construction sector.” Accessed April 23, 2022. https://
www.investindia.gov.in/sector/construction.
Shen, W., W. Tang, W. Yu, C. F. Duffield, F. K. P. Hui, Y. Wei, and J. Fang.
2017. “Causes of contractors’ claims in international engineering-
procurement-construction projects.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 23 (6):
727–739. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1281839.
Silva, C., and C. Cowap. 2008. “The teaching of law to non lawyers.”
In Proc., Int. Conf. on Building Education and Research, 1135–1150.
Salford, UK: Univ. of Salford.
Singh, H. 1964. “Judiciary in India.” Indian J. Political Sci. 25 (3–4):
301–306.
© ASCE 04522025-14
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2022, 14(4): 04522025
Soo, G., M. Kumaraswamy, T. S. Ng, and F. Y. Y. Ling. 2008. “Injecting
real-life law into construction education role-playing in group projects.”
In Proc., Int. Conf. on Building Education and Research, 1176–1185.
Salford, UK: Univ. of Salford.
Srikrishna, B. N. 2008. “The Indian legal system.” Int. J. Legal Inf. 36 (2):
242–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0731126500003024.
Sun, M., and X. Meng. 2009. “Taxonomy for change causes and effects in
construction projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 27 (6): 560–572. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.005.
Tabish, S. Z. S., and K. N. Jha. 2012. “The impact of anti-corruption strat-
egies on corruption free performance in public construction projects.”
Construct. Manage. Econ. 30 (1): 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01446193.2011.654128.
Tavakol, M., and R. Dennick. 2011. “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha.”
Int. J. Med. Educ. 2 (Apr): 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb
.8dfd.
Thomas, H. R. 2012. “Some principles applied to DSC claims.” J. Leg. Aff.
Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 4 (2): 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000080.
Thomas, H. R., and R. D. Ellis. 2007. “Interpreting construction contracts:
Fundamental principles for contractors, project managers, and contract
administrators.” In Interpreting construction contracts. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Tross, S. A., and T. J. Maurer. 2000. “The relationship between SME job
experience and job analysis ratings: Findings with and without statis-
tical control.” J. Bus. Psychol. 15 (1): 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1023
/A:1007770919305.
Ursachi, G., I. A. Horodnic, and A. Zait. 2015. “How reliable are meas-
urement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability
estimators.” Procedia Econ. Finance 20 (15): 679–686. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9.
Wang, T. 2020. “Research on contract management and claim of construc-
tion project.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Economy, Management and
Entrepreneurship (ICOEME 2020) Research, 327–332. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Atlantis Press SARL.
Yap, J. B. H., M. Skitmore, Y. W. Lim, S. C. Loo, and J. Gray. 2021.
“Assessing the expected current and future competencies of quantity
surveyors in the Malaysian built environment.” Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manage. 29 (6): 2415–2436. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2021
-0091.
Yogeshwaran, G., B. Perera, and K. Perera. 2014. “Competencies expected
of graduate quantity surveyors by the Sri Lankan construction industry.”
In Proc., 8th FARU Int. Research Symp. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Univ. of
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.