Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Brief of The Claims

    Uploaded by

    Mohit Kumar
    1. The document discusses several claims raised by a Concessionaire that were awarded by an Arbitration Tribunal, including claims for additional costs during an extended construction period, a 29 month extension of the concession period, and modification of a toll notification date. 2. The State Government challenged some of the arbitration awards in court, including the additional costs claim and concession period extension. The court has so far upheld the modification of the toll notification date but decisions are pending on the other claims. 3. Key issues in dispute include whether delays were the responsibility of the Concessionaire or the Government, the appropriate calculation of additional costs during extended periods, and potential inconsistencies between the concession agreement and accepted financial bids.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Brief of The Claims

    Uploaded by

    Mohit Kumar
    44 views2 pages
    1. The document discusses several claims raised by a Concessionaire that were awarded by an Arbitration Tribunal, including claims for additional costs during an extended construction period, a 29 month extension of the concession period, and modification of a toll notification date. 2. The State Government challenged some of the arbitration awards in court, including the additional costs claim and concession period extension. The court has so far upheld the modification of the toll notification date but decisions are pending on the other claims. 3. Key issues in dispute include whether delays were the responsibility of the Concessionaire or the Government, the appropriate calculation of additional costs during extended periods, and potential inconsistencies between the concession agreement and accepted financial bids.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Brief of the claims

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The document discusses several claims raised by a Concessionaire that were awarded by an Arbitration Tribunal, including claims for additional costs during an extended construction period, a 29 month extension of the concession period, and modification of a toll notification date. 2. The State Government challenged some of the arbitration awards in court, including the additional costs claim and concession period extension. The court has so far upheld the modification of the toll notification date but decisions are pending on the other claims. 3. Key issues in dispute include whether delays were the responsibility of the Concessionaire or the Government, the appropriate calculation of additional costs during extended periods, and potential inconsistencies between the concession agreement and accepted financial bids.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Brief of The Claims

    Uploaded by

    Mohit Kumar
    1. The document discusses several claims raised by a Concessionaire that were awarded by an Arbitration Tribunal, including claims for additional costs during an extended construction period, a 29 month extension of the concession period, and modification of a toll notification date. 2. The State Government challenged some of the arbitration awards in court, including the additional costs claim and concession period extension. The court has so far upheld the modification of the toll notification date but decisions are pending on the other claims. 3. Key issues in dispute include whether delays were the responsibility of the Concessionaire or the Government, the appropriate calculation of additional costs during extended periods, and potential inconsistencies between the concession agreement and accepted financial bids.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Brief of the claims raised by Concessionaire & awarded by AT with comments / remarks of

    CE-RO, Bhopal

    Claim Claim raised by Decision of AT Details of Court Grounds of relief for challenging the
    no. Concessionaire on claim cases on claims Award U/s 34
    under AT Award
    1(a) Rs 32.43 Cr+ interest AT declared an amount of Claim challenged During the extended period of
    @12% towards Rs. 17.25 Cr + interest before High Court, completion, calculation of claim amount
    additional cost of which is the difference Delhi by the State towards deployment of plant &
    deployment of plant & between accepted Govt. machinery, overhead cost, loss of
    machinery, overhead financial bids as per recovery overhead and profit during
    cost, loss of recovery Schedule-‘H’ (page 378 of extended period of construction,
    overhead and profit CA) and construction cost increase in cost of labour, plant &
    during extended increased in audited machinery and other materials
    period of balance sheets for the including POL are not given.
    construction, increase year 2009. One of the Further, due to delay in approval by
    in cost of labour, arbitrator rejected the Railways, Contractor could have
    plant & machinery claim and the claim was completed road work but did not do so,
    and other materials decided by the majority until design of ROB is approved.
    including POL (2:1)
    Article 5.2 (c) (i), it was the obligation of
    Concessionaire to “apply for and obtain
    all necessary clearances and/or
    approvals for the construction of Road
    Over Bridge (ROB) / from the Ministry
    of Railways” and under Article 5.3 (iii),
    the Government of India was required
    to provide necessary assistance to the
    Concessionaire in securing applicable
    permits which was done on the request
    of Concessionaire.
    One of the Arbitrator also rejected the
    claim of additional cost of deployment
    of plant and machinery etc during the
    extended period from the ground that
    working front to take up the work were
    available for road works. The non-use
    of mobilized equipment and inaction on
    the part of claimant to carry out and
    complete work other than ROB on the
    available front, cannot be ground to
    grant compensation for idling charges,
    escalation etc
    Moreover, costs actually incurred and
    certified by the statutory auditor of
    concessionaire due to Force Majeure
    event have not been brought before the
    AT.
    Claim has been challenged by State
    Govt. after approval of Ministry in OMP
    1666/2014 filed before Hon’ble High
    Court, Delhi, Decision pending.
    1(c) 29 months extension AT decided that on Claim challenged Article 5.2 (c) (i), it was the obligation of
    in concession period account of delay in before High Court, Concessionaire to “apply for and obtain
    handing over of GAD from Delhi by the State all necessary clearances and/or
    19.08.2002 (signing of Govt. However,approvals for the construction of Road
    Agreement) to 17.11.2005 High Court in
    Over Bridge (ROB) / from the Ministry
    (date of GAD approval) petition filed by theof Railways” and under Article 5.3 (iii),
    and further on account of Concessionaire in the Government of India was required
    delay in removal of HT/LT January 2020to provide necessary assistance to the
    lines a period of 23+6= 29 (OMP(I) (comm) Concessionaire in securing applicable
    months extension in 26/2020 in its Order permits which was done on the request
    concession period has dated 12.3.2020 has of Concessionaire.
    been considered as awarded the claim
    As per Definition of Concession Period
    reasonable. in favour of
    in CA vide Clause 2.2 provides 12 yrs
    Concessionaire
    of concession period including
    implementation period. Further, the
    State PWD has challenged the Award
    in High Court, Delhi in OMP 1666/2014,
    decision on which is pending. Despite
    case being pending in Court, High
    Court Delhi in petition filed by
    Concessionaire vide Order dated
    12.03.2020 has allowed collection of
    toll for 29 months.
    3 Modification of TollThe AT noted that there is Claim upheld by the With regard to instant claim, following is
    notification dated
    some miss-match between High Court Order brought out –
    20.02.2018 for
    the Definition of the dated 12.9.2014 in
    Definition of Concession Period in CA
    enabling Concession period saying OMP 1015/2014
    vide Clause 2.2 provides 12 yrs
    Concessionaire to
    it 12 years including filed by
    including implementation period.
    collect toll for
    implementation period and Concessionaire for
    operation period of 12
    the accepted financial bid implementation of Further, as per Article 1.2.3 (ii) in case
    years ending on vide Schedule-H, Award in High of ambiguities or discrepancies
    22.02.2020. Appendix ‘B’, CSD at page Court, Delhi. Appeal between the Articles and the
    no. 334-335 of the CA filed by State Govt. Schedules, the Article shall prevail.
    providing the operation vide FAO (OS) Accordingly as per Article 2.2,
    period of 12 years 115/2018 pending concession period comprises operation
    commencing from the before High Court, period being implementation period.
    COD. Accordingly, AT Delhi.
    considering the ‘Doctrine Case was challenged before High
    of Contra Preferentum’ Court Delhi and High Court vide Order
    also known as dated 22.12.2017 dismissed objection
    “interpretation against the of Authority. Subsequently State PWD
    draftsman” concluded that filed appeal against the Court Order on
    notification dated 22.12.2017 which is pending.
    20.02.2008 should be
    modified to provide toll tax
    collection for operation
    period of 12 years and
    ends on 22.02.2020.
    4 Rs. 5.05 Lakhs as Claim allowed with interest Claim challenged Claim is challenged in High Court,
    difference of Fees @ 18% before High Court, Delhi.
    unpaid towards cost Delhi by the State
    of Arbitration Govt. in OMP
    1666/2014 Decision
    pending

    You might also like