Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"115. Coming to the rate payable to M.s IET (Co-claimant Respondent (ITDC) has worked out the amount as that the agreement rates of M/s CPA are only app Depending on the contention & amount the Respondent (M/s ITDC) as worked out in the Statement as correct, I find that total cost of furniture supplied by the Co-claimant (M/s IET) works out to Rs. 81,02,250/- (900 beds x 7483/- per piece + 450 bed side tables x Rs. 3093/- per piece). Further the agreement rates were for supplying and installation of furniture. Presently the furniture is in knocked down condition and is yet to be assembled. Therefore according to the contact agreement, for the furniture in the knocked down condition 85% of the full rates are payable. Therefore the amount payable to the Co-claimant i.e. M/s IET works out to Rs. 68,86,912/- (Rs.

81.02.250/- x 0.85).

116. The Co-claimant (M/s IET) has requested that it should be paid at the rates given in the P.O. (Purchase Order) dated 31.07.2010 which is a part of MoU dated 31.07.2010. In this connection, I consider that the M/s CPA had entered into MoU with M/s IET to complete the supplies in time and also to provide the necessary benefit of the supply to M/s CPA. Therefore the rates given in P.O. dated 31.07.2010 were applicable if the Co-claimant would have supplied the items in time and would have been taken in the records by the Respondent (ITDC). But the Respondent did not consider the above supplies in the Final Bill of the Claimant (M/s CPA). Therefore it is evident that the Claimant (M/s CPA) did not get any benefit of the supplies made by Co-claimant (M/s IET) which is still lying in the two ware houses (C-34 & D-60) and has not been taken over by the Respondent (M/s ITDC) till date. I agree the M/S IET the Co-claimant is not responsible for keeping the furniture in the two warehouses (C-34 & D-60) and non- payment by the Respondent (ITDC) for the furniture. But at the same time the Claimant (M/s CPA) also cannot be held responsible for this incident. In fact the Respondent (ITDC) and DDA are responsible for the entire development on their part. Under the circumstances it will be unjust & against the principle of natural justice to recover the extra cost i.e. difference of rates quoted in the Purchase Order (P.O.) and contact agreement of the Claimant (M/s CPA) from the Claimant without given any benefit of the supplies made by the Co-claimant (M/S IET). I, therefore, consider and decide that the Co-claimant (M/s IET) should be paid at contract agreement rates of MIG Flats of M/s CPA.

5. The submission of the respondent appears to be that since the furniture items are still retained by the Petitioner, they are not obliged to deposit the amounts awarded under the aforesaid head. On a due consideration of the findings which ultimately came to be recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal and stand reflected in Para 115 to 117, the Court finds itself unable to countenance the stand as taken by the respondent ITDC. It becomes pertinent to observe that the petitioner can neither be penalized nor put to loss merely because ITDC has chosen not to lift the items stored in the warehouse. Its inaction, in any case, would not detract from the right of the Petitioner to claim those amounts from the respondents. In fact, it would still be open to ITDC to lift those articles in terms of the Award. The Court thus finds itself unable to see any justification in the stand taken by ITDC in this regard.

7. From the computation sheets which have been submitted by respective parties, the Court notes that disputes are raised by both sides as to the amount ultimately payable in terms of the Award. Since those issues would require a detailed calculation and computation exercise being undertaken, the Court deems it appropriate to place the two computation charts which form part of the record before the concerned Joint Registrar who may undertake the aforesaid exercise and place a report indicating the amount liable to be deposited by ITDC in terms of the order of the Court dated 21 December 2022. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from today.