Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Larsen and Toubro
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Karnataka partly allowed cross-appeals arising from an arbitral award in a metro rail construction dispute. The court set aside the arbitral award to the extent it granted Claims (ii), (iv), and (v) to L&T, and also set aside the finding that L&T was entitled to compensation for time-related costs under Claim (iii) while rejecting it for want of proof. The court held that the award on Claim (ii) was based on a novel method not supported by the claim or evidence; the award on Claim (iv) failed to consider BMRCL's contractual defence under GCC Clauses 2.2 and 8.3; the award on Claim (v) incorrectly included piling guide rings/spacers disallowed by the Engineer; and the rejection of Claim (iii) ignored material evidence beyond Ex.C-98 and failed to address the contractual ba
What did the court decide?
The impugned arbitral award is set aside to the extent it awards amounts in favour of L&T in respect of Claims (ii), (iv) and (v); and to the extent it holds L&T entitled to compensation for time-related costs under Claim (iii) and rejects the said claim for want of proof of quantum. Parties are at liberty to agitate Claims (iii), (iv) and (v) afresh.