terms and conditions between the parties. There is no provision for any escalation and based upon the same both the parties acted upon, then there is no question of any claim revolving around the same but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as noted, the Petitioners have claimed the increased price of the escalation only for Phase-II work, i.e. renovation of additional 60 Guest Rooms. In my view, in such type of contract, it is necessary for the parties to make the terms and conditions very clear. Before starting of the work, if negotiations took place and based upon which the Petitioners permitted to proceed with the additional work, the correspondences with regard to the escalation was going on. Even the Petitioners Officers were fully aware of the same, but admittedly there was no negative communication forwarded and/or sent by the Respondents at any point of time. The issuance of Letter of Intent itself is not sufficient to say that the rejection was communicated basically, in the facts, where admittedly, as recorded above, the request was throughout made for escalation. The grant of Phase-I award of contract, in no way compared with the grant of renovation of the additional award. The parties, in a given case, may expect to proceed based upon the agreed terms and conditions. Admittedly, the final order work was not issued immediately after Letter of Intent, it was
