IN THE MATTER OF:-

WELSPUN ENTERPRISES LIMITED …..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. ….DEFENDANT

Sr. No. DATE PARTICULARS

1. 08.06.09 Defendant No. 1 accepted plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s tender for the
work of polishing of pond for Panipat Naphtha Cracker Project
(EPCC-15 Package)
2. 02.07.09 Detailed letter w.r.t terms and conditions of the contract
3. 10.07.09 Accumulation of large quantity of water due to heavy and
excessive rainfall.
4. 11.07.09 Defendants were informed about Accumulation of large
quantity of water due to heavy and excessive rainfall
5. 15.10.09 First concreting exercise started at the pond
6. 10.08.10 Modified panels were received
27.06.10 Polishing ponds were completed and made available to
dDefendant no.1
7. 15.08.10 Completion of Installation of modified panels
8. 14.10.10 Only day when Defendant noNo.1 provided only power supply
at the work site
9. 16.10.10 Final test of project could be completed due to non-
availability of permanent power supply
10. 16.10.10 Plaintiff received mechanical certificate certifying that
commissioning of all the work in relation to the EPCC-15
Package have been completed
11. 20.10.10 Plaintiff received commissioning certificate certifying that
commissioning of all the work in relation to the EPCC-15
Package have been completed
12. 10.12.10 Plaintiff submitted its request for extension of time till
18.10.10
13. 24.01.12 Plaintiff followed up letter dated 10.12.10 requested for
contractual time period to be extended
14. 23.02.12 Plaintiff made presentation before Ddefendant Nno.2 on issue
of time extension
15. 16.03.12 Defendant Nno. 2 informed Ddefendant Nno. 1 that there was
no delay that may be attributable to the plaintiff for the delays
and consequently no price reduction was applicable on the
plaintiff for the works undertaken under the contract
16. 31.03.12 Plaintiff requested defendant Defendant noNo.1 to take over
the completed project, the letter further stated that defect
 liability period of the plaintiff Plaintiff was over on
19.10.2011. defendant Defendant noNo.1 accordingly, took
over the polishing pond unit including maintenance
17. 04.04.12 Plaintiff submitted a no claim certificate to defendant
Defendant noNo.2
18. 04.04.12 Defendant Nno.1 sought clarification from defendant
Defendant noNo.2 on the issue whether the delay in
procurement of pumps was attributable to the plaintiffPlaintiff
19. 17.04.12 Defendant Nno.2 respondent to defendant Defendant noNo.1
reiterating that delay in procurement of pumps was not
attributable to the plaintiffPlaintiff
20. 10.05.12 Defendant noNo.1 sought further clarifications from defendant
Defendant noNo.2 regarding plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s application
for extension of time.
21. 11.05.12 Plaintiff was awarded the final completion certificate
22. 24.05.12 Defendant noNo. 1 was reiterated that delay in completion of
the project was not attributed to the Pplaintiff
23. 04.10.12 Defendant Nno.1 sought further clarifications from defendant
Defendant noNo.2
24. 01.01.13 Defendant noNo.2 provided detailed clarifications to
Ddefendant Nno.1 and reiterated that the entire schedule of
construction was delayed inter alia due to the huge discharge
of water from existing adjacent polishing pond owned by the
Ddefendant Nno.1 and not otherwise
25. 16.03.13 Plaintiff issued letter requesting defendant no. 1 to release
amount of 3,09,00,000/- arbitrarily withheld by defendant
Defendant noNo.1
26. 03.09.13 Defendant no.2 informed plaintiff that the request of extension
of time had been granted by the defendant Defendant noNo.1
with price reduction of 5% of contract value as per GCC
Cclause No. 4.4.2.0.
27. 04.10.13 Defendant no.1 released amount of Rs.1,50,14,611/- to the
plaintiff .
28. 23.08.16 Plaintiff issued letter requesting for release of its dues for the
works undertaken.
 FACTS
 Suit is filled by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 for the recovery of Rs. 8,01,58,556/-
with interest, for amounts withheld by the defendant no.1 in contravention of the agreement
between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. Defendant no. 1 in the year 2008-09 invited
tenders for the work of polishing of pond for Panipat Naphtha Cacker Project (EPCC-15
Package), defendant no.2 was retained by the defendant no.2 as the project management
consultant. Plaintiff participated in the bid floated by defendant no.1for polishing of pond
for Panipat Naphtha Cacker Project (EPCC-15 Package) and was ultimately selected as the
successful bidder, and was awarded the works by issuance of fax of acceptance om
08.06.09 by defendant no.1, total lump sum contract value was set out as 30,02,67,000
(including CST but excluding excise duty and service tax), the schedule of completion of
works covered under the contract was set out as 12 months from date of issuance of fax i.e
08.06.09.
 Immediately after issuance of fax the plaintiff stated the mobilization of machineries and
manpower resources to execute the works, however despite the best efforts of the plaintiff
he was unable to start as the entire area of the polishing pond was surrounded by water due
to heavy rainfall on 10.07.09, which further flooded the site, after massive efforts
undertaken by the plaintiff, the area was made suitable and the first concreting exercise
stated on 15.10.09. the issues that the plaintiff made further was the timely supply of
permanent power by defendant no.1 under the terms of the agreement, to ensure the use of
polishing pond from 27.06.10 as demanded by the defendant, the plaintiff deployed 6 diesel
generations at the site work, incurring additional costs in the process as the permanent
power supply at the site was provided only on 14.10.10 by defendant no.1.
 Plaintiff procured electrical panels matching with then existing panels at the substation of
the site area after the approval of the defendants, but after the receiving of panels the panels
were mis matched on enquiry the plaintiff was informed that the design on which the new
panels were based has been replaced by new ones by defendant no.1, the plaintiff was
therefore forced to sent back the panels for suitable modifications, the modified panels
were received on 10.08.10 and installed on 15.08.10, the final tests for the project could be
completed only on 16.10.10, despite tall the hardships the plaintiff completed its part of
contract and made it available to defendant no.1 on 27.06.10 at its own costs.
 Plaintiff received mechanical completion certificate on 16.10.10, commissioning certificate
on 20.10.10, as mechanical certificate can only be granted on 16.10.10on account of
inordinate time taken by defendant no. 1, on 10.12.10 plaintiff submitted its request for
extension of time till 18.10.10 as per the contract between the parties, however, no reply
 was received by the plaintiff, he followed up another letter dated on 24.01.12 requesting
contractual time period to be extended, thereafter the plaintiff made a presentation before
defendant no.2 on the issue of time extension, after detailed examination defendant no.2 by
letter dated 16.03.12 informed defendant no. 1 that there was no delay that maybe
attributable to the plaintiff and no price reduction was applicable on the plaintiff for the
works undertaken under the contract. Meanwhile the plaintiff through letter dated 31.03.12,
requested the defendant no. 1 to take over the project, which further stated that the defect
liability period of plaintiff was over on 19.10.11, the defendant no. 1 accordingly on
31.03.12.
 The final payment was not to be released until the plaintiff had furnished a ‘no claim
certificate’, on 04.04.12, the plaintiff submitted defendant a ‘no claim certificate’ with
defendant no.2 w.r.t the project in question, while the request of extension by the plaintiff
being examined , the defendant no. 1 on 04.04.12 sought clarification from defendant no.2
on the issue that whether the delay in procurement of pumps was attributable to the
plaintiff, the defendant no.2 responded on 17.04.12 reiterating that delay in procurement of
pumps was not attributable to the plaintiff, meanwhile Plaintiff was awarded the final
completion certificate on 11.05.12, thereafter on 10.05.12 Defendant no.1 sought further
clarifications from defendant no.2 regarding plaintiff’s application for extension of time on
24.05.12 , the defendant no.2 responded reiterating that delay in procurement was not
attributable to the plaintiff, Defendant no.1 once again vide its letter dated 04.10.12 sought
further clarifications from defendant no.2 regarding plaintiff’s application for extension of
time, defendant no. 2 on 01.01.13 reiterated that the entire schedule of construction was
delayed inter alia due to the huge discharge of water from existing adjacent polishing pond
owned by the defendant no.1 and not otherwise.
 The plaintiff on receiving no response from the defendants on its request for extension of
time, issued a letter dated 16.03.13, requesting defendant no.1 to release amount of Rs.
3,09,00,000/- arbitrarily withheld by defendant no.1, the plaintiff received no response to
its letter dated 16.03.13, on 03.09.13 Defendant no.2 informed plaintiff that the request of
extension of time had been granted by the defendant no.1 with price reduction of 5% of
contract value as per GCC clause No. 4.4.2.0., on 04.10.13 Defendant no.1 released amount
of Rs.1,50,14,611/- to the plaintiff, thus an amount of 1,150,14,611/- was unjustifiably
deducted by defendant no. 1 towards price reduction despite there being no delay due to
reasons attributable to the plaintiff.
 Since October, 2013, plaintiff has made several requests and representations to the
defendant no.1 for release of its legitimate dues, but defendant no. 1 has failed release dues
of the plaintiff. On 23.08.16 Plaintiff issued letter requesting for release of its dues for the
works undertaken but defendant no. 1 has failed to reply to the letter for request for
payment issued by plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant no. 1 an
amount of rs. 1,50,14,611/- which has been unjustifiably deducted by defendant no.1
towards price reduction from the final contract price, an amount of rs. 3,00,00,000/- for
additional manpower and equipment cost incurred by the plaintiff, an amount of rs.
10,03,821/- towards cost of temporary pumps installed till delivery of vertical pumps and
an rs. 27,53,227/- towards costs of mobilization and use of the diesel generators sets
 installed and an additional amount of rs. 2,18,69,446/- due to project being extended for
reasons not attributable to the plaintiff with the rate if interest of 15% p.a being contractual
rate of aforementioned accounts that is rs. 95,17,451/- with pendente lite interest and future
interest at a rate which the court deem fit.
 The plaintiff is entitled to receive from defendant no. 1 a total of rs. 8,01,58,556/- i.e
7,06,41,105/- being the principal amount and rs. 95,17,451/- being the interest thereon
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court maybe pleased to pass judgement and decree in
favour of plaintiff and against the defendant as follows
 Direct defendant no.1 to make payment of Rs 8,01,58,556/- along with interest.
 Direct defendant no.1 to make payment of future interest from date of decree till
payment.
 Award costs of proceedings, and
 To pass any other orders as the court deem fit