Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus Teknow Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

2017 (3) TMI 1568 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings - challenge to the impugned Award as regards over run charges - Held that:- The Court finds that in the impugned Award the learned Arbitrator has discussed Clause 9 pertaining to over run charges. He has also adverted to email dated 30th June 2009 written by BHEL to the Respondent stating that while escalation would not be payable, over run charges would in fact be paid. The learned Arbitrator has then noted that at the time of submission of the tender, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ount and that too only up to 27th May 2009 i.e. for a period of three months beyond the original completion date. The amount of over run per month charges was calculated @5% of the contract value divided by the original contract period and thus worked out as ₹ 1,59,731 per month. This was then multiplied by the period of over run i.e. 10 months. This worked out to ₹ 15,97,310. Since, however, Respondent had claimed only ₹ 14,79,615, only ₹ 14,79,730 was allowed. However, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion that under Clause 5.7 no pendente lite interest could be granted. The Award to the extent that it has awarded pendente lite interest is contrary to the express terms of the contract and is hit by Section 28(3) of the Act. The Award to this extent is opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is hereby set aside. Only the postAward interest in the manner awarded in the impugned Award is upheld. - O.M.P. 534/2015 - Dated:- 16-3-2017 - S. Muralidhar, J. For the Petitioner : Sanjeev Ana .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

007 issued by BHEL in favour of the Respondent for for execution and handing over of Civil works of switchyard and transformer yard for M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation 220/33 KV substation at Barsingsar in Rajasthan. 2. The clauses of the work order relevant for the present purposes are as follows: (i) Under Clause 3.1 the total contract price was ₹ 5,11,14,000. (ii) Under Clause 3.2 the actual payment to be made to the Respondent was based on measurement taken at the site and verified by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. In case the scheduled completion got extended beyond three months fixed, over run compensation would be suitably paid on mutual agreement between BHEL and the Respondent. The decision of BHELK in this regard was final and binding on the Respondent. (v) Under Clause 11, if the Contractor fails to complete the work within the contractual period it was liable to pay penalty @0.5% for amount equal to short fall in progress achieved and 0.5% of the contractual price as LD for each week of part the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns for BHEL. Likewise, the further EOT was granted till 30th April 2009 on the same basis. 4. On 30th April 2009, the Respondent applied for a further EOT till 31st August 2009. There was delay BHEL responding to this request. On 22nd June 2009, BHEL wrote to the Respondent complaining of the slow progress in the work and asking the Respondent to take immediate action to get the work started by 23rd June 2009 failing which they would have no choice to take suitable action as per the contract agr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

calation and compensation from 31st April 2008 onwards. 6. On 30th June 2009, an email was sent by the BHEL to the Respondent stating that there was no provision in the contract for short closing of the contract. However, it was stated the over run charges as per the contract shall be paid. 7. In response, on 4th July 2009, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that it is required pay the over run charges and that it was deputing its representatives for taking joint measurement of the site on 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 48,72,435 on account of over run charges. The learned Arbitrator by the impugned Award has awarded the Respondent ₹ 10,76,084. 10. The other challenge is to Claim No.7 which was for pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. By the impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator is granted interest @ 13% per annum from 1st July 2009 till the date of the Award and up to the date of payment. If the payment was beyond 90 days from the date of the Award then interest @ 18% per annum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Anand, the EOTs were on account of delays caused by the Respondent. 12. The Court finds that in the impugned Award the learned Arbitrator has discussed Clause 9 pertaining to over run charges. He has also adverted to email dated 30th June 2009 written by BHEL to the Respondent stating that while escalation would not be payable, over run charges would in fact be paid. The learned Arbitrator has then noted that at the time of submission of the tender, the Respondent had filled up the analysis of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version