appellant‟s letter dated May 26, 2004. The learned arbitrators have noted that this issue was initially referred to a dispute resolution committee, but without any success. The learned majority arbitrators have noted that as per clause 6.3 of the agreement the designs prepared by the employer i.e. the appellant, were expressly stated to be based on detailed tests/surveys carried out at site and the design norms and specification given in the bid documents are the minimum to be provided and the responsibility for adequacy of the design rests with the employer. The learned arbitrators have noted that at a pre-bid meeting held on April 18, 2002, vide item No.5 of the minutes drawn up, it was confirmed by the appellant that the respondent shall review the design and engineering of the works by an experienced professional designer and suggest modifications, but the responsibility of adequacy of the design would still be that of the appellant. We may only add at this stage that though the learned arbitrators have not highlighted, it is apparent that the appellant proceeded with the notice inviting tender with reference to old worthless and useless data, overlooking that due to waves, the sea shore topology changes and the sea bed profile recorded in a particular year would not hold good for the subsequent year and thus the appellant was desperately trying to salvage its prestige, and the works, without making a candid admission of its negligence. The minutes were being recorded in a manner where one could argue that the design responsibility was that of the respondent, but the last line of the minutes were to the effect that the responsibility would always be that of the appellant. In para 11.1 of the award the learned majority arbitrators have highlighted the old data used while preparing the NIT, resulting in a bill of quantity shown which was extremely deficient. The learned majority arbitrators have also noted that in the approval letter dated March 02, 2004 the approval was expressly
