Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2015 (2) TMI 688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e facts in brief may be noted at the outset. 3. The petitioner is a consortium of two companies i.e. M/s JSC OGCC KazStoryService, a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan and KazStoryService Infrastructure India Private Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said consortium has been formed by an agreement dated 1st July, 2010 for the purposes of executing a contract that was to be awarded by the respondent for Pipeline Laying and Terminal Works for Dabhol - Bangalore Pipeline Project. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent had floated a Tender for the said project in the year 2010 and the entire work was divided in 10 Spreads (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J). While Arbitration Petition (Civil)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cution of the contracts. On 4th January, 2013 and 5th July, 2013, the petitioner submitted its claim to the respondent for Rs. 34,70,11,907/- (Rupees Thirty Four Crore Seventy Lacs Eleven thousand Nine hundered and seven only)[In Arbitration Petition (Civil) No.36 of 2014] and for Rs. 1,79,23,83,208/- (Rupees One Arab Seventy Nine Crore Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Three thousand Two hundred and Eight only) [In Arbitration Petition (Civil) No.38 of 2014) respectively. The petitioner alleges that the respondent rejected the said claims which was not acceptable to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, invoked clause 40.2 of the General Conditions of Contract which provides for conciliation. As the petitioner's proposal for conciliation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tended stay compensation is required to be paid to the petitioner. The above position was also expressly stated in clause 12 of the detailed letter of acceptance dated 13th December, 2010, which is in the following terms: "12.0 COMPENSATION FOR EXTENDED STAY   Extended stay compensation is not applicable and shall not be payable to the Contractor as per clause no. 42.0 of Special Conditions of Contract." 8. According to the respondent, the aforesaid clause was further amplified in Annexure -1 to the said detailed letter of acceptance which was not placed before the Court though the detailed letter of acceptance dated 13th December, 2010 formed a part of the petitions filed by the petitioner. 9. Insofar as the claim of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es 42.1.2 and 42.1.4 of the SCC contemplate that in the event the contractor/bidder does not indicate the rate of extended stay, it will be presumed that no extended stay compensation is required to be paid. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had quoted "NIL" against compensation for extended stay in its bid. If that is so, it must be understood that the petitioner had agreed to forego its claim to extended stay compensation in the event the period of performance of the contract is to be extended as had happened in the present case. This position was conveyed to the petitioner by the letter of acceptance dated 13th December, 2010. The petitioner did not raise any objection on the aforesaid score. If the petitioner had voluntari....