A highway EPC dispute concerned whether additional slope protection, erosion control and landslide correction measures constituted a change of scope. The court dismissed the Section 34 challenge, leaving the award undisturbed, and dismissed the stay application as infructuous. No costs were awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~30
versus
M/S G.R. INFRAPROJECTS LTD.
..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv with Mr. Manmeet Singh, Mr. A. Sharma and Ms. Nishtha Chaturvedi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
I.A. 2137/2020 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 359/2020 & I.A. 2136/2020 (for stay)
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 1
stability measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures. The issue that arose before the Arbitral Tribunal was whether measures like slope stability, erosion control and landslide correction etc. other than breast walls and retaining walls are part of the scope and / or incidental during the construction period for the development of the project. On a finding in favour of the respondent that they are not part of the EPC Agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal has allowed certain claims as noted above.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 2
in Schedule C, and in conformity with the specifications and standards set forth in Schedule D.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 3
supported by any investigation based on design and that the same is within the scope of work under the EPC Agreement and further reminded the respondent to provide the design based on data obtained from investigation and working methodology.
CLAIM No.1 : Claim for declaration of Change of Scope for the execution of the slope stability, erosion control and landslide correction measures [i.e. Slope Protection Measures other than Breast Walls and Retaining Walls] set
out in the Change of Scope Proposal.; and
CLAIM N0.2 : Claim for amounts 'illegally' deducted in violation of the EPC Agreement for the Petitioner not having undertaken slope stability, erosion control and landslide correction measures.; and
CLAIM N0.3 : Claim for interest on amount of Rs. 3,00,88,000/initially deducted 'illegally' in violation of EPCA for Claimant not having undertaken slope stability, erosion control and landslide correction measures from due date for such payment.; and
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 4
CLAIM N0.4 : Claim for emergency measures already undertaken by Claimant at km 102 and 105.930 of Project Highway, being not covered under Article 2 of EPCA alongwith interest thereon.; and
CLAIM N0.5 : Claim for declaration of Change of Scope in respect of extension [586m] in length of Project Highway.;and CLAIM N0.6 : Claim for legal expenses and associated costs.; and
CLAIM N0.7 : Claim for pendent lite and future interest.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 5
the maintenance of the Project Highway in accordance and in conformity with the Schedule E of the EPC Agreement. Thus, evidently the development, maintenance and management of the Project Highway under the instant EPC Agreement was in a permanent and not temporary nature and Schedule/s A, B, C and D are inter-connected and equally dependent upon each other. The framework of Model EPC Agreement development by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways („MoRTH‟, for short) is based on various principles and it specifically adopts an approach that relies on assigning the responsibility for investigations, design and construction to the respondent for a lump sum price determined through competitive bidding. The objective is to ensure implementation of the Project to specified standards with a fair degree of certainty relating to costs and time while transferring the construction risks to a private sector contractor. The EPC Agreement defines the scope of the Project Highway with precision and predictability to enable the respondent herein to determine its costs and obligations with a ceiling of 10% of the Contract Price to cater for any changes in the Scope of Project to be borne by the respondent. Project risks such as soil conditions and weather or commercial and technical risks relating to design, construction and maintenance have also been assigned to the respondent herein. The landslide occurred as the design opted/ followed by the respondent herein did not take into account the surrounding ground conditions, which resulted in failure of hill slopes while cutting. The respondent herein executed the excavation work without taking any safety measures to ensure that there are no slope failures while hill cutting. By virtue of the instant claim/s the respondent herein is merely trying to cover
Page 6
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
its wrong-doings by claiming that the alleged rectifications somehow change the Scope of Work as per the EPC Agreement and blame the petitioner.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 7
with the requirements specified in IRC SP: 19 and information regarding depth of water table, seepage flow, presence of any weak, unstable or problematic strata and as stipulated in 4.4.4 of SP: 842009 type of cutting involved and proposed cut slopes shall be provided in accordance with the nature of the soil encountered. Where required, benching, including use of Slope Stability measures like pitching, breast walls etc. shall be provided to make slopes stable and safe.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 8
any other structures under or above ground, which may be affected by construction operations get all safety measures approved from the Engineer. It is specifically stated therein that if any, of the said objects get damaged by reason of the negligence of the respondent herein, it shall be replaced, restored to the original condition at his cost. In the instant case, the respondent herein, despite being well aware of the limited RoW and height of excavation, started work without submission of any precaution measures as no such measures were taken during excavation, therefore consequence due to excavation on hill side is Contractor‟s responsibility. It was after the road was constructed, the exposed surface of excavated hill started failing during rains as there was no slope protection done by the respondent herein. This resulted in serious threat to the safety of workers and also endangered the lives of road users. It is mainly due to the deficient design and poor execution of works that has resulted in failure of excavated hill slopes which were left exposed without any slope protection measures.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 9
Specifications and Standards set forth in Schedule D and in case of any relaxation required by the respondent in a section, the alternative design criteria for the said section shall be provided for review of petitioner‟s Engineer. As per Article 10.2.2, the respondent shall also appoint a „Proof Consultant‟ in the manner prescribed therein. As per Article 10.2.3, the said „Proof Consultant‟ shall evolve a systems approach with the Design Director to minimize the time required for final designs and construction drawings and proof check the detailed calculations, drawings and designs, approved by the Design Director. As stipulated in Article 13.1.1 of the EPC Agreement, the petitioner may require the respondent to make modifications/ alterations to the „Works‟ before issuance of a „Completion Certificate‟ either by instructing or by requesting the respondent to submit a proposal for „Change of Scope‟ involving addition cost or reduction in cost and similarly as stipulated in Article 13.1.3 of the EPC Agreement upon determining at any time that a „Change of Scope‟ will, if adopted (i) accelerate completion, (ii) reduce the cost of the petitioner of executing, maintaining or operating the Project Highway, (iii) improve the efficiency or value to the petitioner of the completed Project Highway or (iv) otherwise be of benefit to the petitioner, it shall prepare a proposal with relevant details and submit it along with relevant details to petitioner for its approval or rejection and if rejected by the petitioner, the respondent herein shall not undertake any such „Change of Scope‟ without express consent of the petitioner, save and except for meeting any emergency and furthermore as stipulated in Article 13.4 all and any such work/s are subject to restrictions on Change of Scope as it is specifically stipulated in Article 13.4.1 that no „Change of Scope‟ shall be executed unless the petitioner has issued the
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 10
„Change of Scope‟ order save and except any „works‟ necessary for meeting emergency and as stipulated in Article 13.4.3 no change made necessary because of any default of the respondent herein in the performance of its obligations under the EPC Agreement shall be deemed to be „Change of Scope‟ and shall not result in adjustment of the „Contract Price‟. 14. Furthermore, as stipulated in Article 13.1.2 of the EPC Agreement the „Change of Scope‟ shall mean [a] change in specifications of any item of „Works‟; [b] omission of any work; and / or [c] any additional work, plant, materials or services which are not included in the Scope of the Project, including as those mentioned therein. 15. In view of the above provisions contained in the EPC Agreement, the claim/s of the respondent are not covered under Article 13 therein and as such do not fall within the „Change of Scope‟ as contained therein. Admittedly in its claim/s the respondent has not attributed any loss or damages arising to it because of the default or neglect of the petitioner as stipulated in Article 13.1.4 of the EPC Agreement. The respondent has failed to show any report given by the „Safety Consultant‟ in adherence to Clause 10.1.6 and furthermore as apparently evident from Schedule B of the EPC Agreement the same is pertaining to „Project Facilities‟ and is not with respect to the overall/general working of the Project Highway. Construction of breast walls and retaining walls are ancillary parts of the „Scope of Work‟ to be performed by the respondent in parts of the Project Highway and not throughout the same and the main works consist of lying, developing, constructing, maintenance of the Project Highway. The instant EPC Agreement is a standalone agreement, which is as per the specific landscape, topography, whether conditions, necessities and other requirements of the
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 11
area and no other alternate EPC Agreement and / or Contract Agreement can be, in fact ought to be compared with the same. In view of the aforegoing provisions, especially those stipulated in Clause/s 5.1[e], 10.1.6, 10.3.1, 11.4, 14.1.2[a], [b], [c] and 19.1.5 of the EPC Agreement, there was / is no „Change of Scope‟ and the alleged „Works‟ are part and parcel of the EPC Agreement pertaining to the whole of the Project Highway and the breast wall/s and / or retaining wall/s are forming only a part of the said Project Highway and are only to provide support and strengthen the identified areas, as, where and when required and are thus within the „Scope of Work‟ of the respondent, more so as there have been neither any kind of change in specifications nor any additional work or services to be performed by the respondent which are not included in its „Scope of Works‟. The instant EPC Agreement is not pertaining to construction of the breast walls and / or retaining walls only. The respondent has further failed to show and / or establish that it has constructed the breast walls as per approved drawings of the typical cross section granted by the petitioner. The claims have been wrongly allowed. The Project Highway has to be stable and sustainable at all parts, even with and / or without breast walls and restraining walls.
“14.1 Claim 1: [Regarding Breast Walls and Retaining Walls] 14.1.1 In this Claim, the Respondent herein has prayed/sought “a. Declaration that other than breast walls and retaining walls, undertaking any slope protection measures or any slope stability measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures including those set forth in the Change of Scope Proposal is not covered within the Scope of the Project under Article 2 of the EPC
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 12
Agreement;
b. Declaration that the slope stability, erosion control and landslide correction measures set forth in the Change of Scope Proposal if required to be undertaken by the respondent herein are to be undertaken as a Change of Scope under Article 13 of the EPC Agreement;”
14.1.2 The AT considers this dispute as consisting of the following issues
(a) Regarding Scope :
Whether Slope Protection Measures (Slope Stability, Erosion Control, Land Slide Correction Measures, etc (other than Breast Walls and Retaining Walls) are part of the Scope, and/or „incidental‟EPCA1.2.1f during the construction period, for the „development‟EPCA1.2.1g of the „Project‟Art.28
(b) Regarding Schedules : Whether Schedule B & Schedule C are subject to Schedule D (which is the contention of the Respondent), or Schedule D is subject to Schedule B & Schedule C (which is the contention of the respondent herein)
(c) Regarding „detailed investigations‟ during „Site Visit‟ Whether Slope Protection Works (other than Breast Walls and Retaining Walls) should/could have been identified (with the required detailed survey investigations) during „Site Visit‟ before bidding (and appropriately provided for in the Bid by the respondent herein and proposed to the AE for Review) - even as Good Industry PracticeEPCA 3.1.3, 28.1
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 13
14.1.3 The following inter alia flow from the Schedule D (as it cites them) and have their effect on the EPCA accordingly.
14.1.4 The AT after considering the stipulations of the EPCA [as well as these Manuals, Specifications, etc of the Schedule D] and the facts before this AT (pertaining to this dispute), and the contentions of the respondent herein and the petitioner herein, brings out the following: (a) Regarding Scope :
1. The Specifications in the Manuals / MORTH Specifications etc. are generic and broad-based in nature as they are intended to cater to all kinds of road projects. They contain specifications for various work items, some of which may not be required in a given road project. For instance, the Manual / MORTH specifications provides specifications for „Well Foundation‟ but well foundation is not included in present project. 2. The Hill Road Manual inter alia, has separate Chapters (as indicated below), all of which may not be applicable to all hill roads. For example, in the instant case, the Chapter 12 of the Hill Roads Manual is not applicable.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 14
3. IRC SP:84-2009 (Manual) indicates
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 15
addressed the paras 1 to 13 of the Manual “with a view to make appropriate provisions in the Schedules of the Concession Agreement” with regard to the items of work to be taken up as part of the Scope of the project.
Paras 12 (Special Requirements for Hill Roads) and 14 (Retaining Wall and Breast Wall) of Annex I to Schedule B, and IRC SP:84-2009 para 13.1.3 are also to be noted in this regard.
4. MORTH Specifications also at the beginning of each and every relevant para, highlight Scope of the Project.
5. Petitioner herein in its Defence Statement and oral submissions has argued that scope of work is not limited to Schedule B and C and covers every work required to be carried out for safe and reliable highway which includes complying with special requirements of hill roads as per Manual and therefore, the respondent herein is under obligation to carry out slope protection and slope stability measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc. In view of this, no payment of works included in change of scope proposal under claim No.1 is admissible.
6. Such averment of the Respondent is not tenable for the following reasons:
a. The Respondent has admitted in its Defence Statement (para 6.14) that
“Schedule B sets out very detailed and exact requirements as well as drawings and TCSs for the project highway and similarly Schedule C details of the project facilities which are to be provided by the respondent herein. Thus and as evident, the scope of the project is
Page 16
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
limited to Schedule B and Schedule C, which are to be undertaken in conformity and have to be in accordance with the Specifications and Standards provided in Schedule D.” AT has noted that slope protection measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc are not explicitly mentioned in Schedule B or Schedule C and therefore cannot be treated to be part of the Scope of the instant Project.
b. The AT has considered provision of para 12 of Schedule B which states that Special Requirements for hill roads as per Manual shall be complied with Section 13 of the Manual deals with the Special Requirements of Hill Roads. Clause 13.7 relates to Cut Slopes and reads as follows:
“ 13.7 cut Slopes – Cut slopes shall be rendered stable in the construction stage itself, by cutting at the correct angle and benching etc. including slope stabilizing structures like drains, breast walls, pitching, etc.”
Of the slope stabilising structures, only drains and breast walls find mention in Schedule B and C; no other works such as erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc appear in these Schedules. Thus, the factual position is that while slope stability measures other than drains and breast walls may be required as per Manual, they are not provided for in the Project Scope. It is not the case of the respondent herein that these measures are not needed; in fact they have submitted that these are necessary, but as they are not included in the Scope of the Project, these works can be taken up only under Change ad Scope.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 17
7. To arrive at a final conclusion as to what is included or excluded from scope of work set out under Schedule B and C, it is necessary to refer to contract provisions as a whole and also look into the intention of the Respondent Authority at the time of inviting RFP with regard to inclusion of works in the scope of the Project. A reading of the Project‟s RFP, which as per EPCA Cl. 27.8 is deemed part of the Agreement, shows that an „Executive Summary‟ of the Feasibility Study Report (FSR) was made available to the Bidders as part of the RFP. This Executive Summary under para 1.11 (Improvement Proposal) only provides for construction of retaining walls and breast walls as slope protection measures. It provides for construction of 31.755 km retaining wall (para 1.11.11) and 40.604 km breast wall (para 1.11.12). Same length of retaining walls and breast walls is provided under Schedule B of the EPCA. No slope protection measures other than retaining walls and breast walls are provided in the Executive Summary.
8. During the „Discovery‟ process (Application for Discovery and Production of Documents), a copy of the FSR was made available (containing particulars of the cost estimate) by the petitioner herein during the AT‟s proceedings on January 14, 2019. The FSR makes it clear that only Breast Walls and Retaining Walls were contemplated therein and cost estimated accordingly; no other/special structures were envisaged therein.
9. The Schedule H “Contract Price Weightages” of the EPCA provides 26.57% for Protection Works which tallys with the cost estimate of the petitioner herein at FSR of 183.46 crore (page-65 of
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 18
copy submitted on January 14, 2019) against the Total Civil Cost at FSR of Rs 690.56 cr (at page-1 of the above). The cost estimate of 183.46 crore only includes construction of 31.764 km length of retaining wall and 40.604 Km length of breast wall (page 7.5) in addition to drains.
10. Also, Schedule E for Maintenance Requirements (inter alia) indicates attending damages to Breast Walls and Retaining Walls only.
11. Para 1.6.11 (Geology) of Executive Summary of FSR states that “The rocks along the project road generally consist of shale, lime stone, sand stone, dolomite, quartzite, slates, granite, etc. The hill slopes practically stabilized over the time. There is no major slide zone/sinking zone along the road.” This paragraph gives an impression to bidders that since slopes comprising rocks of different nature are stabilized and there is no major slide zone, special protection measures other than those provided under Schedule Bare not required.
12. The AT has noted that slope protection measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc are high cost items. If it was the intention of the petitioner herein to include such special protection measures in the scope of work, those should have been categorically specified under Schedule B, the way provision of retaining breast wall has been specified. This would have ensured that the bidders included their cost in their bid amount. Not having done that the petitioner herein cannot claim these protection works to
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 19
be part of Project Scope on the ground that these are specified in Manual/ Hill Road Manual.
13. The AT does not agree with the averment made by petitioner herein that since the project is to be carried out confirming to Good Industry Practices, the works claimed under change of scope are covered under Good Industry Practices even if not so specifically provided under Schedule B. Carrying out works as per Good Industry Practices is only applicable when no specification of such work is available under the Standard Specifications/Manual. In the present case, specifications for protection works are available in the Manual/ MORTH Specifications, and therefore the question of taking them up under Good Industry Practice clause does not arise.
14. AT has also observed that the petitioner herein did not raise any issue regarding absence of slope protection measures at the time of approving TCSs of retaining wall and breast wall and no amount for incomplete protection works was withheld from first 2 SPS paid to respondent herein. The dispute has only arisen with the SPS 3 in the month of July 2016 after the first slope failure in April 2016.
15. Even EPCA Cl. 6.1.1 (Disclaimer) excludes Cl. 4.1.2 (which places the responsibility for correctness of the Scope of the Project on the petitioner herein), and Cl. 5.2 (representations and warranties of the Authority). The Cl. 6.1.3 refers to matters set forth in Cl. 6.1.1 which excludes Cl 4.1.2. Cl. 6.1.6 relates to all risks relating to the Project, and does not specifically override Cl. 4.1.2 which relates to the Correctness of the Scope of the Project.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 20
16. The Completion Certificate “.....safely and reliably placed in service of the Users...” is for the AE to give as part of the Completion Certificate (Schedule L of the EPCA). Any thing required for it - if it is not part of the Scope -will have to be ensured as Change of Scope by the AE. It is immaterial whether project was carried out as per original scope of work or includes some works carried out under change of scope.
17. Slope Protection Works (other than Breast Walls and Retaining Walls) cannot be considered incidental to the Work as
_139 crore against the Agreement cost of_ 748.77 Crores, i.e., about 18.6%18. In this connection AT notes that a similar hill road project of NHAI - for which RFP was issued in July 2014, as compared to the RFP of this Project issued in Oct, 2014) and entered into on October 13, 2015 (Ref. Answer to Q24 during the cross examination of the Contractor‟s Witness) - viz., Ramban-Banihal project in J&K, separately lists the special protection measures in detail as part of the Scope.
(b) Regarding Schedules
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 21
Accordingly, the claim as stated in para 14.1.1 is upheld.”
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 22
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 23
not part of the work.
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 24
(i) The Specifications in the Manuals / MoRTH Specifications etc. are generic and broad-based in nature as they are intended to cater to all kinds of road projects. They contain specifications for various work items, some of which may not be required in a given road project. For instance, the Manual / MoRTH specifications provides specifications for „Well Foundation‟ but well foundation is not included in present project.
(ii) The Hill Road Manual (IRC:SP:48-1998) [„Hill Road Manual‟, for short) inter alia, has separate Chapters, all of which may not be applicable to all hill roads. For example, in the instant case, the Chapter 12 of the Hill Road Manual is not applicable. (iii) The scope of the work shall be as defined in the Concession Agreement. The Manual shall be read harmoniously with the intent of the Concession Agreement.
(iv) That the petitioner “while finalising the feasibility/project Report and the scope of the project” should have addressed the paras 1 to 13 of the Manual “with a view to make appropriate provisions in the Schedules of the Concession Agreement” with regard to the items of work to be taken up as part of the Scope of the project.
(v) The respondent has admitted in its Defence Statement that Schedule B sets out very detailed and exact requirements as well as drawings and TCSs for the project highway and similarly Schedule C details of the project facilities which are to be provided by the respondent herein. Thus and as
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 25
evident, the scope of the project is limited to Schedule B and Schedule C, which are to be undertaken in conformity and have to be in accordance with the Specifications and Standards provided in Schedule D. Arbitral Tribunal has noted that slope protection measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc are not explicitly mentioned in Schedule B or Schedule C and therefore cannot be treated to be part of the Scope of the instant Project.
(vi) The Arbitral Tribunal has considered provision of para 12 of Schedule B which states that Special Requirements for hill roads as per Hill Road Manual shall be complied with. Section 13 of the Hill Road Manual deals with the Special Requirements of Hill Roads.
(vii) Of the slope stabilising structures, only drains and breast walls find mention in Schedule B and C; no other works such as erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc appear in these Schedules. Thus, the factual position is that while slope stability measures other than drains and breast walls may be required as per Manual, they are not provided for in the Project Scope. It is not the case of the respondent herein that these measures are not needed; in fact they have submitted that these are necessary, but as they are not included in the Scope of the Project, these works can be taken up only under Change of Scope.
(viii) To arrive at a final conclusion as to what is included or excluded from scope of work set out under Schedule B and C, it is necessary to refer to contract provisions as a whole and also look into the intention of the NHAI at the time of inviting RFP with regard to inclusion of works in the scope of the Project. A reading of the Project‟s RFP, which as per EPCA Cl. 27.8 is deemed part of the Agreement, shows that an „Executive Summary‟ of the
Page 26
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Feasibility Study Report (FSR) was made available to the Bidders as part of the RFP. This Executive Summary under para 1.11 (Improvement Proposal) only provides for construction of retaining walls and breast walls as slope protection measures. It provides for construction of 31.755 km retaining wall (para 1.11.11) and 40.604 km breast wall (para 1.11.12). Same length of retaining walls and breast walls is provided under Schedule B of the EPC Agreement. No slope protection measures other than retaining walls and breast walls are provided in the Executive Summary.
(ix) A copy of the FSR was made available by the petitioner herein during the AT‟s proceedings on January 14, 2019. The FSR makes it clear that only Breast Walls and Retaining Walls were contemplated therein and cost estimated accordingly; no other/special structures were envisaged therein.
(x) The Schedule H “Contract Price Weightages” of the EPCA provides 26.57% for Protection Works which tallys with the cost estimate of the petitioner herein at FSR of 183.46 crore (page-65 of copy submitted on January 14, 2019) against the Total Civil Cost at FSR of Rs 690.56 cr (at page-1 of the above). The cost estimate of 183.46 crore only includes construction of 31.764 km length of retaining wall and 40.604 Km length of breast wall (page 7.5) in addition to drains.
(xi) Schedule E for Maintenance Requirements (inter alia) indicates attending damages to Breast Walls and Retaining Walls only.
(xii) Para 1.6.11 (Geology) of Executive Summary of FSR states that “The rocks along the project road generally consist of shale, lime stone, sand stone, dolomite, quartzite, slates, granite, etc. The hill slopes practically stabilized over the time. There is no major slide zone/sinking zone along the road.” This paragraph gives an impression to bidders that since slopes
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 27
comprising rocks of different nature are stabilized and there is no major slide zone, special protection measures other than those provided under Schedule Bare not required.
(xiii) That slope protection measures, erosion control and landslide correction measures, etc are high cost items. If it was the intention of the petitioner herein to include such special protection measures in the scope of work, those should have been categorically specified under Schedule B, the way provision of retaining breast wall has been specified. This would have ensured that the bidders included their cost in their bid amount. Not having done that the petitioner herein cannot claim these protection works to be part of Project Scope on the ground that these are specified in Manual/ Hill Road Manual.
(xiv) Arbitral Tribunal notes that a similar hill road project of NHAI - for which RFP was issued in July 2014, as compared to the RFP of this Project issued in Oct, 2014) and entered into on October 13, 2015 (Ref. Answer to Q24 during the cross examination of the Contractor‟s Witness) - viz., Ramban-Banihal project in J&K, separately lists the special protection measures in detail as part of the Scope.
“24. Also in the case of Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd., 2007 (8) SCC 466 wherein it was held that the interpretation given by the Arbitral Tribunal to the contract is a plausible interpretation, the Court should not interfere even if a different interpretation is plausible. It is the consistent view
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 28
of the Supreme Court that award is a well reasoned based on substantive law and within the four corners of the terms of the contract, there is no patent illegality on the face of it. The award cannot be set aside only because a party feels that the award is unfair or unreasonable unless the unfairness and the unreasonableness shocked the conscience of the Court (ref . J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another, 2011 (5) SCC 758 .)”
I.A.2136/2020 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2020 /aky
OMP (COMM) 359/2020
Page 29
1 issue framed by the court
Did the tribunal's interpretation treating additional slope protection measures as a change of scope under the highway EPC agreement warrant interference under Section 34?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
TRG Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.H.P.C. Ltd.Relied on¶185
TRG Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.H.P.C. Ltd., 218 (2015) DLT 611, · Who else cites this
Devika Builders Pvt. Ltd. an Ors. v. National Cooperative Consumers and Ors.Relied on¶190
Devika Builders Pvt. Ltd. an Ors. v. National Cooperative Consumers and Ors. 2015 (3) ARBLR 448 (Delhi),
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
M/S G.R. INFRAPROJECTS LTD.
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court