2002 (8) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on clause being No. 14 with respondent No. 1. Under this agreement, the fee chargeable by the petitioner for the building to be constructed for Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad was to be at the rate of 4 per cent of the approved preliminary cost estimate. Vide letter No. II-15(iii)/91-92-385 dated 21-5-1991, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that it had approved the preliminary cost estimate of the building at Rs. 10.52 crores. It is further alleged that petitioner completed 60 per cent of the work in three phases but the payment made by respondent No. 1 was calculated at the rate of 4 per cent on the cost estimate of Rs. 5.94 crores submitted prior to said approved estimate cost of Rs. 10.82 crores. Petitioner was, thus, paid less a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....constitution/substitution of M/s. Design Team and the said notice dated 3-1-2000 be read as having been served by Design Team Consultants (P.) Ltd. Respondent No. 1 sent reply dated 11-4-2000 again persisting in the stand taken in the reply dated 17-1-2000. It was prayed that an independent arbitrator for adjudication of the claims of the petitioner, be appointed. 2. Respondents filed reply on the affidavit of Dr. A.K.V.S. Reddy, Director of respondent No. 1-Museum. It is alleged that proposal to raise additional building to display the objects after approval was conveyed by the Ministry of HRD vide letter No. F. 3-2/87/CH. 5 dated 16-10-1989. It was decided on 24-2-1990 to entrust the construction of building to NBCC, a Central Government....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lding was handed over on 31-12-1998. It is claimed that the petitioner is a company with distinct status and identity and present petition is misconceived. It is also alleged that contract was executed at Hyderabad; payments to M/s. Design Team were also made there and the fact that arbitrator would sit at Delhi as provided under clause 14 of the said agreement, has no relevance as regards territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the petition. 3. In the rejoinder filed to the reply, it is claimed that the agreement dated 17-1-1991 was executed at Hyderabad House, New Delhi and payments under the contract were also made in Delhi. 4. Submission advanced by Sh. R.S. Murthy for respondents was that to fasten liability on respondents, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d whereas the consultant have agreed to perform the services as set out in the enclosed conditions upon and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the said 'conditions'. Now, these present witnessth and it is hereby agreed and delivered by between the parties hereto as follows. . . ." 5. In the definitions given under the heading 'Conditions of Agreement' in clauses (ii) and (iv ), words 'Employer' and 'Consultant' have been defined thus :-- "(ii)Employer means the Chairman, Salar Jung Museum Board, which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context include Employer's representative. (iv)Consultant means M/s. Design Team or their assigns or successors in office and authorized representative." 6. Copy of let....