Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"56. On a conjoint reading of these clauses and sub- clauses, it is abundantly clear that what the Respondent wants to contend could be possible only by substitution of the term "RI" in place of the term "R" in the formulae provided for in Sub-Clauses 70.3 (i) to 70.3
(vii). We are afraid that cannot be done. We are duty bound to read and interpret the contract as it is made and signed by the parties.
57. We have given a serious consideration to the argument of the Respondent that use of "R" in the formulae in Sub-Clauses 70.3(i) to 70.3(ii) is not in keeping with the spirit of the contract, it contradicts various provisions in the other contract clauses and that such use of "R" provides double benefit of escalation on foreign currency component of the work etc. We have also considered the argument that logically RF is equal to zero in case of formulae under Sub-Clauses 70.3 (i) to 70.3 (vii) and therefore R=R1+RF=RI+0=RI in case of these formulae. But if that was so, no one prevented the Respondent to put "RI" in place of "R" in the formulae while drafting the bid documents and providing these documents to the prospective bidders to base their quote on the basis of the said bid document. We observe that in spite of what is stated by the Respondent; it cannot wish away the presence of "R" in Sub-Clause 70.3 for all these reasons. The term "R" (and not the term "RI") is very much present in the said contract which has been signed by the parties. There is no ambiguity in the 2nd/3rd August 2022 Arabian Jacking Enterprises For contracting & Trading Company (AJECT) v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 1-comap-49-2019 in arbp-925-2012-J.doc algebraic formulae those have been incorporated in the contract if they are read individually. Therefore we do [not] agree that on true and correct interpretation of this particular contract which has been signed between the parties, there is any scope to read the expression "R" in Sub-Clause 70.3 (i) to 70.3 (vii) as "RI".

61. We observe that the Claimant was for the first time formally told that there is some error in the calculation of price variation in the contract sometime in September 2001. In fact Respondent itself discovered this anomaly around the same period when Audit Officer brought it to the notice of the Employer and the Employer brought in turn to the notice of the Engineer. The Respondent's case is that "None of the parties could contemplate or understand the formulae under Sub-Clauses 70.3(i) to 70.3(vii) so as to make the party unjustly enriched by getting double price adjustment and more particularly when the other provisions of the contract clearly provide that only contract price was liable to be adjusted. And therefore it is a mutual mistake". We do not subscribe to this point of view. This is a commercial contract. The Respondent as Employer has put in its bid document for prospective bidders to quote their bids in a competitive environment. No prospective bidder can be expected to read a bid document differently than what it reads in black and white. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any mistake on the part of the Claimant. The only inaction that can be attributed to the Claimant is that it did not point out this anomaly in the pre-bid meeting. But none of the other bidders also brought it 2nd/3rd August 2022 Arabian Jacking Enterprises For contracting & Trading Company (AJECT) v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 1-comap-49-2019 in arbp-925-2012-J.doc out in the pre-bid meeting. The Claimant has asserted that it was fully aware of the formulae as they stood and that the formulae had not gone unnoticed. It is the sworn testimony of the Claimant's witness that in arriving at the amount of its tender bid, the Claimant took full account of the formulae. The Claimant cannot be faulted for the mistake in the document drafted by the Respondent-employer. It cannot be said as a mutual or common mistake.