Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: HCC in National Highways Authority Of India vs Cec-Hcc Joint Venture on 20 March, 2017Matching Fragments
% 20.03.2017
1. The challenge in this petition, filed by the National Highways Authority of India („NHAI‟) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („Act‟), is to an Award dated 31st March, 2014 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal („AT‟) by a majority of 2:1 in the disputes between the NHAI and the Respondent CEC-HCC Joint Venture, arising out of a contract agreement for the work of Rehabilitation and Upgrading of KM 253.00 to KM 316.00 of NH-76 to 4 lane configuration in the State of Rajasthan, (EW- II), Construction Package EW-II RJ-7.
5. The third Arbitrator, who was nominated by NHAI, gave a dissenting note.
6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent.
Error in the name of the Respondent
7. At the outset it is submitted by Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI that the majority Award is non est since it has been announced in favour of an entity different from the Respondent. The name of Respondent as shown in the impugned majority Award is „HCC-CEC Joint Venture‟ whereas the correct name of the Respondent is „CEC-HCC Joint Venture‟. It is submitted that the Respondent ought to have filed an application for correction of the name in the absence of which the Award is non est.
8. The Court finds this objection to be hyper technical. It does not qualify as a valid objection for the purposes of Section 34 of the Act. The Court clarifies that the name in the cause title of the impugned majority Award is in fact a reference to the Respondent i.e. „CEC-HCC Joint Venture‟. The error in naming it as HCC-CEC Joint Venture is typographical The pleadings before the AT also clearly show that the name of the Respondent was indeed „CEC-HCC Joint Venture‟ and should be read as such. There is, therefore, no merit in this objection of the NHAI.
"31. On the subject of additional costs on account of extending stay of plant and equipment at site the argument that the majority and the minority awards are without any evidence is wrong for the reason we find that the manner of proof contemplated by the parties was a certification by the Chartered Accountant of HCC to file compilation with reference to the account books, stock register etc. of HCC. Record of the Arbitral Tribunal shows that the Chartered Accountant did the necessary ground work and filed a tabulation with reference to the books maintained by HCC. The extract of the compilation, summarized by the Chartered Accountant, forms part of the majority award in the form of enclosures to Annexure 1 to the award and we find that the learned Chartered Accountant has extracted the equipment deployed during the extended period of the contract Based on the jointly signed monthly reports. This has been highlighted by the majority award while annexing the tabulation as an Annexure to the award. The entire equipment used at the site, with reference to the jointly signed monthly reports is reflected in the Annexure. Section 65(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads: