MARS Techno-Legal LLP — Insights

Extension of Time Claims in EPC Contracts: What Contractors Must Know

MARS Techno-Legal LLP — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 03:30:00 GMT

On engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) projects, delay is almost inevitable — but liability for that delay is not. An Extension of Time (EOT) claim is the contractual mechanism that protects a contractor from liquidated damages when completion is delayed by events that are not its responsibility. Yet in practice, the majority of EOT claims fail not on their merits, but on the quality of the record-keeping behind them.

Why entitlement is only half the battle

Most standard-form contracts — FIDIC, CPWD and bespoke EPC conditions alike — grant entitlement to an EOT for defined 'employer risk events': delayed access to site, late instructions, variations, or force majeure. Establishing that such an event occurred is necessary, but it is rarely sufficient. The contractor must also demonstrate that the event actually caused critical-path delay to completion.

Cause, effect and the critical path

This is where most claims unravel. A delay event that affects non-critical work may cause disruption and cost, but it does not, by itself, justify an extension of the completion date. Tribunals increasingly expect a logic-linked programme and a recognised delay-analysis methodology — time impact analysis or as-planned versus as-built — to connect the event to the delay. An assertion of delay, unsupported by programme evidence, will not survive scrutiny.

Notice provisions can be fatal

Many contracts make timely written notice a condition precedent to entitlement. Miss the notice window, and an otherwise valid claim can be extinguished entirely. Contractors should treat notice obligations as a contemporaneous discipline, not an afterthought raised at final account stage.

Practical takeaways

Maintain a live, logic-linked programme; issue contractual notices on time and in the prescribed form; keep contemporaneous records of delay events and their effects; and obtain a measured delay analysis before quantifying prolongation costs. A claim built on this foundation is far harder to resist — and far more likely to settle without a hearing.

MARS Techno-Legal LLP advises contractors, employers and lenders on EOT and prolongation claims across the infrastructure sector, combining legal strategy with in-house engineering and delay-analysis expertise.

Arbitration or Litigation? Choosing the Right Path for Infrastructure Disputes

MARS Techno-Legal LLP — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 03:30:00 GMT

When a dispute crystallises on a major project, the first strategic question is rarely 'are we right?' — it is 'where do we fight?'. For infrastructure and construction matters, the practical choice is usually between arbitration and court litigation, and the two routes lead to very different outcomes in cost, speed and control.

The case for arbitration

Arbitration offers a neutral, private forum with party-appointed decision-makers — a real advantage when a dispute hinges on technical questions of delay, quantum or design. Parties can appoint arbitrators with engineering or domain expertise, agree a bespoke procedure, and keep commercially sensitive matters confidential. Awards are also more readily enforceable across borders under the New York Convention than court judgments.

Where litigation still wins

Arbitration is not a universal answer. Where urgent interim relief is needed, where multiple parties and contracts must be joined, or where a claim is straightforward debt recovery, the courts can be faster and cheaper. Litigation also creates binding precedent and offers robust appeal rights — valuable where a point of principle, not just money, is at stake.

Read the clause before the dispute

The forum is usually fixed long before any dispute arises — in the dispute-resolution clause signed at contract stage. A poorly drafted clause (ambiguous seat, unworkable institutional rules, or a multi-tier escalation that is impossible to satisfy) can derail a strong case. The time to get this right is at contract negotiation, not at the point of conflict.

A structured approach

The most effective dispute is often the one that never reaches a hearing at all. Before committing to either forum, parties should weigh mediation and dispute-board options, assess the strength and documentation of their position, and model the realistic cost and timeline of each route. The right strategy aligns the forum with the commercial objective — not the other way around.

MARS Techno-Legal LLP represents clients across arbitration, mediation and litigation, and advises on dispute-resolution clauses before disputes arise.

The SARFAESI Act: A Practical Guide for Lenders Enforcing Security

MARS Techno-Legal LLP — Wed, 20 May 2026 03:30:00 GMT

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) transformed loan recovery in India by allowing secured creditors to enforce security interests over a defaulting borrower's assets without first approaching a court. For lenders, it is one of the most powerful recovery tools available — but it is also one of the most procedurally exacting.

The Section 13 framework

Enforcement begins once an account is classified as a non-performing asset. The lender issues a demand notice under Section 13(2) calling on the borrower to discharge the liability within sixty days. If the borrower fails to comply, the lender may take measures under Section 13(4) — including taking possession of the secured asset and selling it. The borrower's objections must be considered and answered under Section 13(3A); failing to do so is a common and costly procedural lapse.

Where lenders most often slip

The Act's remedies are fast, but they are unforgiving of defects. Defective service of the Section 13(2) notice, inadequate reasons in the reply to borrower objections, valuation and sale-notice irregularities, and non-compliance with the prescribed timelines are the issues most frequently exploited in borrower challenges before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Each can reset the clock and erode recovery.

The borrower's remedy — and its limits

A borrower aggrieved by enforcement measures may apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Importantly, this is a remedy against the manner of enforcement, not a general suit on the debt, and it is subject to strict limitation. Lenders who have followed the process precisely are well placed to defend such applications.

Getting it right the first time

Because the strength of a SARFAESI action lies almost entirely in its process, the value of a clean, well-documented enforcement file is difficult to overstate. Title verification, accurate valuation, properly drafted notices and disciplined timeline management at the outset prevent the procedural challenges that otherwise delay recovery by years.

MARS Techno-Legal LLP advises banks and financial institutions on SARFAESI enforcement, DRT proceedings and the full lifecycle of secured lending and recovery.