Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It may be mentioned that in the said agreement dated 10.04.2004, the "National Games Secretariat (NGS), Assam" is referred to as "the employer" and the respondent no. 1 is referred to as "the contractor".

6. The respondent no.1 had completed the contract works and handed over the same to the proforma respondent no.2 on 30.01.2007. Thus, the defect liability period of the said works expired on 30.01.2008. Out of the contract price a sum of Rs.139,45,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thirty nine crore forty five lakh only) was paid to the respondent no.1. It may be stated that STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was appointed as the Engineer-in- Charge in respect of the said contract works. 

LOCATION               Quantity of E/W in Quantity of E/W in
                       Filling as per STUP Filling as per P.W.D.
                       Consultants Record  verification effecting
                                           the above excess/less
Kahilipara    Shooting 37,810.164 cu.m.     37,980.31      cu.m.
Range                                       (0.45% excess)
Bhetapara      Hockey 20,239.390 cu.m.      19,512.80       cu.m.
Stadium                                     (3.59% less)
Sarusajai         Main 2,57,887.744 cu.m.   2,54,336.63     cu.m.
Stadium                                     (1.377% less)
Sonapur Stadium        58,751.270 cu.m.     62,699.36      cu.m.
                                            (6.72% excess)
Grand Total            3,74,688.568 cu.m.   3,74,529.10 cu.m. (Y)

ii. The learned Arbitral Tribunal had returned a specific finding to the effect that various documents exhibited by the parties, most of which are common, particularly, Exts. 6 to 11, 13, 14 and 19 and the additional documents filed by the claimant on 28.11.2015 i.e. Exts. A to A/17 leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent no. 1 on instruction of the Engineer-in-Charge M/s. STUP Consultancy (P) Ltd. executed the additional work for which an amount of Rs.10,38,65,104/- was still due. The said finding is Page No.# 29/44 perverse because of two factors mentioned below:-

of Executive Director, STUP Consultant is there. In Ext-I (Document-9), there is no specification of any additional work.
Therefore, when the CW-1 has stated in his cross examination that no written confirmation is required from the 'Employer' and when CW-1 has not exhibited work order by the Engineer-in-Charge, the finding by the learned Arbitral Tribunal Page No.# 30/44 to the effect "that Exts. A to A/17 leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent no. 1, on instruction of the Engineer-in- Charge, had executed the additional work for which an amount of Rs.10,38,65,104/- was still due" is erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, perverse. Moreso, reliance by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on Ext.A/1 to Ext.A/17 is perverse because the said documents were not exhibited by CW-1 vide his evidence-on- affidavit.