TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rejects challenge to over run charges in Award, upholds reduced sum. Pendente lite interest set aside.</h1> <h3>Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus Teknow Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus Teknow Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:Challenge to the impugned Award regarding over run charges and interest.Analysis:The petitioner, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), filed a petition challenging an Award dated 30th April 2015 by a sole Arbitrator in disputes with Teknow Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The disputes arose from a work order for civil works at a substation in Rajasthan. The work order contained clauses related to contract price, payment based on measurement, interest, extension of time (EOT), penalty for delay, and idle labor charges. The original completion date was 27th March 2008, with multiple EOTs granted subsequently without financial implications for BHEL until 31st July 2009. The disputes were referred to Arbitration, focusing on over run charges and interest claims.Regarding over run charges, the Arbitrator awarded the respondent a sum of &8377;10,76,084 out of the claimed &8377;48,72,435. The Arbitrator discussed Clause 9 on over run charges, noting the respondent's claim for 5% of the contract value for extended maintenance and site running. The calculation resulted in the awarded amount, considering the original contract period and the period of over run. The Court found no legal infirmity in this award, upholding the decision.Regarding interest claims, the Arbitrator awarded interest at 13% per annum from 1st July 2009 till the Award date and at 18% per annum if payment exceeded 90 days post-Award. The petitioner challenged the pendente lite interest award, citing Clause 5.7 prohibiting such interest. The Court agreed, setting aside the pendente lite interest award as it contradicted the contract terms. However, the post-Award interest was upheld as directed in the Award.In conclusion, the challenge to the Award concerning over run charges was rejected, finding no legal issue. The Award was only set aside for the pendente lite interest award, upholding the post-Award interest. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
