MOOT COMPROMIS

1. Rivendell is the state in the country of Indiana. With an average annual rainfall of 64 inches,
there’s no doubt that Gotham City in Rivendell is a wet city. It gets the third highest amount
of rainfall in continent of Asio. The city is on the east side of the Big Island Sea and with
the trade winds, the temperature of Gotham City is neither too hot nor too cold.

2. As many as 15,000 residents of Robinsville, a colony in Gotham City, were irked by the
sewage overflow in the colony during monsoons. The drainage system in the city was built
before the time of independence of Indiana in 1957 and was thus inadequate to deal with
the city’s population now. The storm drainpipes, which were right next to the sewer lines,
could not withstand the monsoons and as both the pipelines were punctured, sewage would
mix in with the rainwater runoff from the roads and flood the streets during heavy rains.
Thus, monsoons caused much hardship to the residents and became a cause of disease
around the area. The residents would dread the season as their repeated requests to civic
agencies had fallen on deaf ears. In 2013, the complaints by the colony residents of
Robinsville about the inadequate drainage system laid down by the Gotham City Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter the ‘Municipal Corporation’) were finally acted upon with the
Municipal Corporation being geared up to tackle challenges of monsoon by 2015.

3. The Chairman of the Municipal Corporation, Mr. Dorrance, in April 2013 took the dais to
announce the revamping of the storm water drainage system in the colony before the advent
of monsoon 2015. In hopes of being elected the Mayor of the City, Chairman of Municipal
Corporation triumphantly announced the new move and invited tenders for the Design,
Engineering and Laying down of the pipelines to carry rain and storm water to the nearest
river. For the purpose of this project, the whole pipeline was divided into three stretches
and three separate tenders were invited for each of the stretches.

4. The tender was also published in the ‘Times of Indiana’, the National Daily, referring to
the speech by Mr. Dorrance and inviting bids for the Design, Engineering and Laying down
of the pipelines wherein it was mentioned that bids by only the reputed Contractors with
proven track records shall be accepted.

5. The tender invited much attention among the companies and the firms as this was seen as
only the first of many such developments in improving the antiquated drainage system in
the city. The Contractors - Slaughter Swamp, GothCorp and Stacked Sewers Deck were
among these corporations which submitted bids for the three different stretches of the
project in end of May in 2013.

6. After the completion of the tendering process, Slaughter Swamp came out with the lowest
bid and thereby secured the rights of the project for Stretch-1 (S-1). Accordingly, a letter
of Intent (‘LoI’) was issued to Slaughter Swamp in June 2013 for the purpose of Design,
Engineering & Laying down of the pipelines in Stretch – 1 (S-1). LoI’s were also issued to
Stacked Sewers Deck’s for Stretch-2 (S-2) and GothCorp’s for Stretch-3 (S-3) in the same
month.

Page 1 of 13
7. Celebrating the successful bidding process, Mr. Dorrance announced the appointment of
Mr. Harvey Dent as the Project Manager for the whole project amid much fanfare and
media hype. Subsequently on 05th August 2013, a contract was signed between the
Municipal Corporation and Slaughter Swamp, GothCorp and Stacked Sewers Deck each.
The terms and conditions stipulated in each of the contracts were the same and contract
inked with Slaughter Swamp has been annexed as ‘Annexure- A-1’ (hereinafter as the
‘Contract’)

8. As the development had captured the attention of the whole city, the first month after
signing of the Contract saw many articles in Times of Indiana hailing Mr. Dorrance for his
decisiveness and referring to trust reposed in Mr. Harvey Dent, as the Contractors began
with their obligations under the Contract.

9. The first month of the contract was kept as the ‘Development Period’ wherein the
Contractor was obligated to inspect the premises where the construction was to be
undertaken as stipulated in the contract, submit designs and drawings of the aforementioned
construction and procure all required permits among other such obligations as provided for
in Article IX of the Contract.

10. During the course of the month each of the contractors submitted the design for the stretch
concerning them with Slaughter Swamp submitting the designs on 05th September 2013.
Additionally, a Construction Progress Schedule (‘CPS’) was submitted by Slaughter
Swamp which is attached as ‘Annexure A-2’. As stipulated in the CPS, the completion
date for Stretch-1 was fixed as 01.01.2015.

11. Owing to administrative clearances on the government’s end, with the designs having
required to be approved at various levels of the department, the final approval letters for
the designs submitted was sent by the Municipal Corporation on 3rd October 2013 and the
commission date for the whole stretch of the project was fixed as June 2015.

12. The Contractors waited before the handover of a wholly encumbrance-free site can be made
as per Article VI of the Contract which provided for the same after 30 days of the approval
of the designs within which period, the Municipal Corporation could procure such
additional sites as may be required for Construction. However, on 1st November 2013, only
1/5th of the site was handed over by the Municipal Corporation to Slaughter Swamp.
Slaughter Swamp was quick to point out the deficiency in providing the whole site.
Slaughter Swamp vide its two letters to the Municipal Corporation pointed out the deficient
handover of the site and requested for the whole site to be handed over to the Company so
the work on the Project can be started. In its second letter, Slaughter Swamp reserved the
right of imposition of liquidated damages as per Article III of the Contract as they had
already procured the required machinery on their part for the purpose of the construction.
In their reply to the letter, the Municipal Corporation very briefly stated that the site would
be provided by the Municipal Corporation within reasonable time and reminded Slaughter

Page 2 of 13
 Swamp of its own obligations under the Contract. Finally, on 4th January 2014, the
Municipal Corporation wrote a letter to Slaughter Swamp formally handing over of the
entire remaining part of the wholly encumbrance free site.

13. Having a wholly encumbrance free site, Slaughter Swamp began with the excavation works
and unearthing of land on 5th January 2014. As the work picked up pace, it was found out,
on 17th February 2014, that the lateral roots of a wild Birch tree permeated deeply into the
soil extending to the area of excavation in Stretch-1 wherein pipes had to be laid. Though
the tree was outside the width of site, however, its roots protruded in the site and posed a
danger of damage to the drainpipes yet to be installed. Upon inspection by the Engineers
in Slaughter Swamp, Wayne Corporation, it was concluded that for the purpose of the
construction, substantial roots of the tree were to be cut off which would effectively lead
to uprooting of tree. As provided in the ‘Rivendell Preservation of Trees Act, 1994’,
restrictions were imposed on felling and removal of trees and a permit was required to be
taken for such an act.

14. Slaughter Swamp vide letter dated 18th of February 2014, requested the Municipal
Corporation to provide the required assistance, as envisaged in Article X of the Contract,
in the procurement of permits from the ‘Tree Officer’ as designated under the Rivendell
Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. However, no assistance was provided by the Municipal
Corporation in this regard and moreover, Mr. Harvey Dent did not even take any calls by
officials in Slaughter Swamp. On 4th March 2014 the permit was finally granted to the
Municipal Corporation by the Tree Officer. Consequently, the removal of the said
impediment took another ten days and the excavation work was resumed on 14th March
2014 on that part of the stretch.

15. As the excavation works progressed, many residents expressed their anguish at the hour-
long traffic jams due to the multiple traffic diversions created due to the excavation works
being carried out in the area allotted to Slaughter Swamp. As the route was one which was
usually taken by many ‘high dignitaries’, a letter referring to the traffic jam situation in the
area of work allotted to Slaughter Swamp and the need to complete the excavation work
soon was written by the Public Works Department for Rivendell, which is in-charge of
construction and maintenance of roads in the state, to the Municipal Corporation. The
Municipal Corporation, in turn, sent a letter to Slaughter Swamp apprising it of the traffic
jam situation created due to its excavation work and hinted at the need to expedite the
excavation work so normal traffic flow could resume. Slaughter Swamp, in its reply,
acknowledged the problem and stated that it shall endeavor to expedite the excavation work
and hinted at being constrained due to the circumstances beyond its control.

16. According to the calculations and estimations by the Wayne Corporation for Slaughter
Swamp, the excavation work could technically be completed within six months of time.
Accordingly, the Construction Progress Schedule showed the completion of the same in
the 9th month of the Project. However, the excavation was delayed and when the first rains

Page 3 of 13
 of the 2014 monsoon hit Rivendell on 5th June 2014, the site of excavation was flooded
with water. Not only was rainfall this year more than the maximum rainfall of the past five
years but also continuous unlike being intermittent which was the usual case. Though the
ditches were covered to prevent the water from seeping in, the amount of rainfall eventually
led to cave-ins in some part of the site as the shoring could not withstand the amount of
rainfall and in some places, shoring could not be carried out yet.

17. The work had to be called off. Slaughter Swamp, along with Wayne Corporation,
deliberated on the further course of action in an effort to keep up with the Project Timeline.
It was realized that work could not be completed as per the timeline stipulated in the
Construction Progress Schedule. Therefore, just after one day of resumption of work,
Slaughter Swamp vide letter dated 13th August 2014 sought an extension of two months’
time without imposition of liquidated damages on account of “unforeseen circumstances”
from the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation in its reply dated 5th
September 2014 noted that in light of the recent events and deliberations conducted with
Chairman, Mr. Dorrance, it had been decided that an extension of one month shall be
granted to Slaughter Swamp without any imposition of damages.

18. Mr. Oswald Cobblepot, one of the two directors in Slaughter Swamp had developed a good
relationship with Mr. Harvey Dent by now. Mr. Cobblepot, while on a social visit, inquired
Mr. Dent of the reason that only one month of extension had been granted though a request
was made for two. However, Mr. Harvey Dent curtly advised Mr. Cobblepot to concentrate
on work instead of requesting extensions.

19. Despite efforts put in by Slaughter Swamp to finish the project within time, it was found
that even after taking into consideration the extension, the project could not be completed
within the stipulated time. Therefore, Slaughter Swamp vide letter dated 28th September
2014 with reference to its earlier letter requesting extension without imposition of
Liquidated Damages sought an extension of another month from the Municipal
Corporation. The Municipal Corporation replied to Slaughter Swamp on 2nd December
2014 wherein the Municipal Corporation accepted its request for grant of extension for a
further period of 1 month without the imposition of Liquidated Damages.

20. Mr. Cobblepot & Mr. Dent would regularly meet on social visits and amid conversations
relating to politics, cinema and sports, the progress of the Project would be also be shared
along with Mr. Dent.

21. As months elapsed, much progress was made, however, with the deadline of 1st March
2015 approaching, the Municipal Corporation embarked on its own thorough assessments
of the project completion along with its Independent Engineer and concluded that despite
the extensions, Slaughter Swamp’s work in progress was such that could not be completed
within the stipulated time. The Municipal Corporation sent a letter to Slaughter Swamp on
25th February 2015 stating that on assessment, it had been found that work would not have

Page 4 of 13
 been completed within the stipulated time and the Municipal Corporation reserves its right
as under Article III of the Contract while granting an extension of 1 month.

22. On 31st March 2015, the Municipal Corporation sent a letter to Slaughter Swamp which is
attached as “Annexure – A-3”.

23. On receipt of the letter mentioned above, Directors, Mr. Cobblepot & Mr. Nygma, quickly
convened to discuss the matter and on 3rd May 2015 Slaughter Swamp sent a letter to the
Municipal Corporation disputing the imposition of “penalty” specifically stating that
Slaughter Swamp was not liable for any of the delays as they had been diligent with work
on their end and the site would be handed over within reasonable time.

24. Finally, on 15th May 2015 the completed project for Stretch S-1 was handed over to the
Municipal Corporation by M/s Slaughter Swamp Pvt. Ltd., GothCorp and Stacked Sewers
Deck delivered the completed site for their respective stretches in March 2015.

25. With the May 2015 elections, the long-standing government in the country of Indiana
marred by its corrupt history lost due to the ‘Development Agenda’ of the opposition party.
The change in the Central Government lead to considerable pressure on the Municipal
Corporation officials for recovery of amounts in various projects being undertaken by it.
Consequently, the Municipal Corporation started sending out notices to various defaulting
contractors for both projects where there was delay and project which were on-going or
completed.

26. Amid the crackdown on Municipal Corporation officials, on 1st June 2015, Slaughter
Swamp sent a letter to Mr. Cobblepot stating the Company is utilizing its right to claim
Liquidated Damages for delay in handing over of the site for the period of two months
under Article 6 of the Contract to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 and the same is to be complied
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.

27. Amid the flurry of notices and letters flying out the doors of the Municipal Corporation,
one of the notices sent on 02.06.2015 was the one sent by Mr. Cobblepot to the Slaughter
Swamp demanding the Company to deposit an amount to the tune of 15% of the Total
Project Cost for the delay caused from 1st March 2015 to 15th May 2015 as provided under
Article III of the Contract within 15 days of the delivery of the notice or the Municipal
Corporation would be forced to initiate an arbitration as provided. It also stated that “The
Municipal Corporation is not liable to pay any liquidated damages for the delay in
handover of site in view of clear waiver of the right by Slaughter Swamp”.

28. On clear denial of liability of the Municipal Corporation for liquidated damages for delay
in handing over of the site, Slaughter Swamp decided to reiterate its own stance in a letter
sent on 5th June 2015 stating that the claim for liquidated damages from the Contractor was
illegal and referred to its letter sent to Municipal Corporation on 3rd May 2015.
Furthermore, Slaughter Swamp reminded Mr. Cobblepot of Article II of the Contract which

Page 5 of 13
 provides for Dispute Resolution Procedure agreed between the parties and in light of the
same, a notice to the Municipal Corporation for appearing for Mutual
Discussions/Mediation for resolving the dispute of claim of liquidated damages on account
of delay in handing over of the site under Article III of the Contract.

29. After twenty days i.e. on the 25th May 2015, Slaughter Swamp vide a letter to the
Municipal Corporation stated that “The Municipal Corporation has not only failed to
appear for the mandatory mutual discussions/mediation as provided for in the contract but
also deliberately ignored the Contractor’s letters for scheduling the same.” Slaughter
Swamp accordingly requested the Municipal Corporation for mediation in presence of the
Chairman of the Public Works Department of Rivendell as envisaged in the contract as per
Article II (a) to be scheduled for 28th August 2015.

30. However, before any reply was given by any official in the Municipal Corporation, Mr.
Cobblepot and Mr. Harvey Dent ran into each other at a party where heated arguments were
exchanged between them. Mr. Cobblepot alleged that Mr. Dent was deliberately holding
up payment of the liquidated damages for delay in handover of site in fear of the recent
spate of ‘departmental enquiries’ against the officials in the Municipal Corporation and was
trying to hide his own mistakes by engaging in a witch hunt.

31. Despite the heated exchange Slaughter Swamp was hopeful of a mutually beneficial
settlement. Therefore, not having received any confirmation for the mediation scheduled
on 28th August 2015, Slaughter Swamp after waiting for a considerable period, again sent
a request for mediation with assistance of Chairman of Public Works Department of
Rivendell on 25th October 2015 and recommended 10th November 2015 as a convenient
date for aforementioned mediation subject to availability of the Chairman himself.

32. On 1st November 2015, the Municipal Corporation sent a notice to Slaughter Swamp for an
appointment of an Arbitrator while appointing Ms. Rachel Dawes as its choice of arbitrator
stating that the Contractor has failed to comply with the directions in letter dated 1st June
2015 and consequently, the Municipal Corporation was going to go forward with the
arbitration as under Article II (b) of the Contract.

33. On receipt of notice for appointment of an arbitrator by the Municipal Corporation,

Slaughter Swamp replied vide letter dated 5th November 2015 wherein it stated:

“In reference to Slaughter Swamps earlier letter, it is again stated that the
Municipal Corporation has to follow the mandatory procedure laid down as per
the Article 2 of the Contract and refer the disputes for mutual discussions/
mediation.
Regardless, it is pointed out that the correct forum to approach would be the
Municipal Corporation Commission under Section 5 of the Rivendell Municipal
Corporation Commission (Resolution of Disputes) Act, 1957 which states:

Page 6 of 13
 “Section 5.- The State Commission shall either adjudicate upon any disputes
that arise between the Gotham City Municipal Corporation and the
contracting companies itself and to refer any dispute for arbitration.”

A mutually beneficial solution can be inked between the parties and thus we
urge the Municipal Corporation to comply with our invitation for mediation for
claim of liquidated damages for delay in handover of the site.”

34. Without paying any heed to what had been stated by Slaughter Swamp, the Municipal
Corporation proceeded to file a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
before the High Court of Rivendell (hereinafter the ‘HC’) for appointment of an arbitrator
on 30th December 2015. In this matter, Slaughter Swamp filed a reply before the HC stating
that the Municipal Corporation Commission had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the
matter according to Section 5 of the Rivendell Municipal Corporation Commission
(Resolution of Disputes) Act, 1957 (hereinafter the “Act”) <Refer to the text of the
aforementioned letter for the provision> and thus the concerned arbitration proceedings
were liable to be quashed.

35. The HC had earlier in its judgement in the case of ‘Decker Constructions v. Municipal
Corporation Commission’ had laid down that the Municipal Corporation Commission had
the exclusive jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act. However, this ruling of the HC was
granted an interim stay by the Supreme Court of Indiana in “Decker Construction v.
Municipal Corporation Commission.”

36. While the petition for appointment of arbitrator filed by the Municipal Corporation was
pending before the HC, a case for the claim of liquidated damages on account of delay in
handing over of site was now filed by Slaughter Swamp on 1st January 2016 before the
Rivendell Municipal Corporation Commission (hereinafter the ‘Commission’) under
Section 5 of the Act. Municipal Corporation Commission decided to adjudicate the matter
itself and admitted the petition by Slaughter Swamp. Despite being issued notice, the
Municipal Corporation did not appear and even after a considerable amount of delay
countless adjournments were sought on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. Slaughter
Swamp highlighting the lackadaisical attitude on behalf of the Municipal Corporation
sought an ex-parte decision in the case however, the plea was not entertained by the
Commission.

37. The Supreme Court of Indiana suffered due to pendency of a large number of cases.
Consequently, it was only on the 07th November 2016 that the Supreme Court gave its
decision in the case of “Decker Construction v. Municipal Corporation Commission.”. It
was held that the word ‘AND’ in Section 5 of the Act was to be read as ‘OR’, thus holding
that the Commission would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the matter if it would
take up the dispute itself or refer it to arbitration. It was further provided that only the

Page 7 of 13
 ‘pending arbitrations’ would not be affected by this ruling and the others which had been
erroneously referred to arbitration by the parties themselves, however were not ‘pending’
as in the ones where no arbitrator has been appointed, would be taken afresh in front of the
Commission.

38. In the meanwhile, Slaughter Swamp wrote a letter to Municipal Corporation referring to its
petition before the Commission. It was stated by Slaughter Swamp that the Municipal
Corporation was deliberately and with a mala-fide intention delaying the resolution of its
dispute as a ruling on the same would be prejudicial to the professional interests of its
officials and therefore neglecting to attend the same and asking for innumerable
adjournments.

39. The Municipal Corporation, in light of the Supreme Court of Indiana judgement on Section
5 of the Act filed a disposal application for the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration
Act, 1996 before the Hon’ble High Court on 30th December 2015. The application was
granted by the Hon’ble High Court in July 2018.

40. On 20th August 2019, the Municipal Corporation filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act
in front of the Commission for the imposition of liquidated damages on Slaughter Swamp
for delay in handing over of the Completed Project. An application was moved by Plaintiff
(i.e. Municipal Corporation) for clubbing of the petitions. The same was not opposed by
Slaughter Swamp. The Commission clubbed both the petitions together – the one filed by
Municipal Corporation and one filed by Slaughter Swamp. Arguments were made by the
Plaintiff (i.e. the Municipal Corporation) and Defendant (i.e. Slaughter Swamp) on aspect
of each other’s case being barred by limitation as per the Limitation Act, 1963. Further
arguments were made by the Plaintiff on onus of proof and by the Defendant on time not
being of essence of the contract, damages, maintainability among other arguments.

Note: All laws of Indian are Pari Materia to the laws in India. The Rivendell Preservation of
Trees Act, 1994’ is Pari Materia to The Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (Delhi Act No.
11 of 1994).

{Students are advised to go through the Indian Contract Act, 1872, The Civil Procedure Code,
1908, & The Limitation Act, 1963, The Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (Delhi Act No.
11 of 1994) among others }

{ Let it be noted that provisions of Civil Procedure Code & Limitation Act are applicable on
proceedings before the Rivendell Municipal Corporation Commission}

Page 8 of 13
 Annexure- A1 (Terms and Conditions stipulated in the Contract)

CONTRACT FOR DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND LAYING DOWN OF

THE PIPELINES

I. Definitions

a) “Contract” shall mean this contract with all its articles and clauses entered into between
Gotham City Municipal Corporation and M/s Slaughter Swamp Pvt. Ltd.

b) “Project Cost”: Project Cost shall mean lowest of the following:

i. 75 crores
ii. Such amount as given by the Contractor and certified by the statutory auditor.

c) Parties shall mean Gotham City Municipal Corporation & M/s Slaughter Swamp Pvt.
Ltd.

II. DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM

a. Mutual Discussion/ Mediation:

Save where expressly stated to the contrary in this Contract, any dispute, difference or
controversy arising out of or in relation to this Contract so notified to the other party (the
“Dispute”) shall, in the first instance, be attempted to be resolved amicably through mutual
discussions/mediation between the parties.
In the event that parties cannot resolve the Dispute through mutual discussions/mediation
within 15 days of the serving of the notice, the parties shall attempt to resolve the Dispute
amicably with the assistance of the Chairman of the Public Works Department of Rivendell
provided such notice is served within 45 days of such failure.
b. Arbitration:
Any Dispute, not resolved amicably, shall be referred to arbitration wherein a bench of three
arbitrators shall finally decide the Dispute. The venue of the Arbitration shall be City of
Gotham.

III. Liquidated Damages:

The Municipal Corporation may impose liquidated damages, by way of compensation and not
as penalty, an amount of 2.5 % of the total project cost per week subject to a maximum of 30%
of the Project Cost due to delay caused in handing over of the completed project by the
Contractor apart from delays attributable to Municipal Corporation or Force Majeure. The
Parties accept that this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
IV. Extension of Time:
The Municipal Corporation, without prejudice to its right to impose Liquidated Damages, may
grant an extension of time to the Contractor for completion of project due to delays attributable
to force majeure, delay in handover of the site, delay attributable to the contractor or any other
delay due to the fault of Municipal Corporation.

Page 9 of 13
V. Development Period:
The first month after the signing of the contract shall be the Development Period. The
Contractor is granted access to the existing site to inspect, carry out minor maintenance work
for the purpose of construction and submit designs for approval to Municipal Corporation and
procure the Applicable Permits as may be required during the completion of the Project. The
contractor is also required to submit a Construction Progress Schedule.
VI. Site:
The existing as well as the additional site shall be handed over to the Contractor free from all
encumbrances within 30 days of the approval of the designs submitted by the Contractor.
Provided that if MCB is not able to hand over the site within the stipulated period, apart from
reasons beyond the control of MCB or due to the breach by Contractor, the Contractor may
demand liquidated damages, by way of compensation and not of penalty, to the tune of
10,00,000 per month.
VII. Breach:
In case of Material Breach of this Contract by the Contractor, without prejudice to any rights
prescribed under the Indiana Contract Act, Municipal Corporation shall have the right to
impose liquidated damages, by way of compensation and not as penalty a sum of 40 % of the
Total Project Cost . This is a genuine estimate of losses accepted by the Parties.

VIII. Disclaimer:
The Contractor acknowledges that prior to the execution of this Contract, the Contractor after
a complete and careful examination of the project has made an independent evaluation of the
project, specifications, standards, site and all information provided by the Municipal
Corporation and has determined to the Contractor’s satisfaction the risks and hazards as are
likely to arise or may be faced by the Contractor in course of its obligations under the Contract.

IX. Obligations of Contractor:

a) Comply with all Applicable Permits and Applicable Laws in the performance of the
Contractor’s obligations under this Contract.
b) Work in optimizing the use of the existing site handed over to them.
c) Make its own arrangements for excavation and observe and fulfil the environmental
and other requirement under the Applicable Laws & Applicable Permits at
Concessionaire’s own cost and expense.
d) The contractor shall ensure that such Site remains free from all encroachments and take
all steps necessary to remove encroachments.
e) Obtain necessary permits, cut the trees and carry out compensatory afforestation as per
the applicable state laws.
f) Carry out shifting of utility services.

Page 10 of 13
X. Obligations of the Gotham City Municipal Corporation:

a) The Board shall assist and provide all reasonable support to the Contractor in obtaining
the Applicable Permits/ Licences.
b) Enable Access to the Site free from all encumbrances in accordance with this Contract.
c) Permit peaceful use of the Site by the Contractor.
d) Approve the Designs submitted by the Contractor within a period of 15 days.

XI. Modification of Designs:

The contractor may submit a modification of design within 6 months after the Development
Period provided that it does not affect the Completion Date. Any such modifications after the
initial submission of designs, provided not attributable to Force Majeure or fault of the
Municipal Corporation, will be at the cost and expense of the Contractor itself.

Page 11 of 13
 ANNF:XlJRE A-2

CONSTRUCTI ON PROGRESS SCHEDULE AS SUBMITTED BY M/S SLA UGHTER

SWAMP PVT.LTD. FOR CONTRACT OF DESIGN, ENGINEER I NG AND L A YI NG
DOWN OF PIPELINES

Sr. MONTHS
No 13 14 15
l'llO.I ECT MILESTONES I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 16 17
I. DEVELOPMENT

2.
PER IOD X
EXCAVAT ION AND

3.
ANCILLARY WORKS
LAYING DOW N OF
X
4.
THE PIPELINES 'I
~
COMPLETION

COMPLETION DATE: 01.01.2015

Page 12 of 13
 ANNEXlllU<'. - A- 3

To
Director
Slaughter Swamp
25 Gotham City , Rivendell, Indiana

Date: 31 st March 2015

Subject : Imposition of Penalty for the month of March 2015 .

Sir,

An Independent assessment of work progress was carried out in February by Gotham City
Municipal Corporation and Mis Powers Enterprises (Independent Engineer) and it was fou nd
o ut that the work undertaken by you under the Contract could not be completed within the
stipulated period. Hence right was reserved under Article 3 of the Contract vide letter dated
25.02.2015 while granting an extension of 1 month. Since no word has been sent from you
regarding the completion of work even until now, a penalty of 10% of the total project cost is
lev ied on you for the month of March. A committee has been set up to apprise of the further
course of action to be taken and the decision of the committee shall be fina l.

Mr. Harvey Dent

Project Manager
Gotham City Municipal Corporation

Page 13 o f B