Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Basic design in Larsen & Turbo Limited vs Geodesic Techniques Private Limited on 5 December, 2020Matching Fragments
This suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendants U/S.34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
2. The facts in brief of the plaintiff's case is that plaintiff having been awarded EPC contract by Bengaluru International Airport Limited for expansion of Bengaluru International Airport Terminal and plaintiff is entitled to appoint subcontractor for the specialized work. Accordingly floated tender for structural steel roof work which included design, procurement, fabrication and erection on the East, West and South of existing terminal and canopy on the North and also for construction of structural steel mezzanine floor in the terminal. Along with the tender documents, plaintiff made available to all bidders, the details regarding concept and requirement of the work including basic design of the structure to enable the bidders to work out the quantity and CT 1390_Com.A.S.802016_Judgment .doc cost of steel and other materials required and submit their bids. The financial proposal of defendant No.1 in sum of Rs.110 Crores came to be accepted by the plaintiff and issued letter of intent dated 29/9/2011. After issuance of such letter of intent, plaintiff issued amendment to the letter of intent on 15/10/2011. Several proposals issued to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff culminated in issuance of above said letter of intent together with tender documents.
POINT No.1 : Negative.
POINT No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT No.1 : The case of plaintiff is that plaintiff having been awarded EPC contract by Bengaluru International Airport Limited for expansion of Bengaluru International Airport Terminal and plaintiff is entitled to appoint subcontractor for the specialized work. Accordingly floated tender for structural steel roof work which included design, procurement, fabrication and erection on the East, West and South of existing terminal and canopy on the North and also for construction of structural steel mezzanine floor in the terminal. Along with the tender documents, plaintiff made available to all bidders, the details regarding concept and requirement of the work including basic design of the structure to enable the bidders to work out the quantity and cost of steel and other materials required and submit their bids. The financial proposal of defendant No.1 in sum of Rs.110 Crores came to be accepted by the plaintiff and issued letter of intent dated 29/9/2011. After issuance of such CT 1390_Com.A.S.802016_Judgment .doc letter of intent, plaintiff issued amendment to the letter of intent on 15/10/2011. Several proposals issued to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff culminated in issuance of above said letter of intent together with tender documents.
17. On going through the award passed by the sole Arbitrator and on hearing both the sides and on going through the evidence and documents produced before the sole Arbitrator by the parties in the present suit. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was awarded EPC contract by Bengaluru International Airport Limited for expansion of Bengaluru International Airport Terminal and plaintiff was entitled to appoint subcontractor for the specialized work and accordingly the plaintiff has floated tender for structural steel roof work which included design, procurement, fabrication and erection on the East, West and South of existing terminal and also canopy on the North side. It is also not in dispute that the tender documents of plaintiff made available to the bidders and details of concept and requirement of work including basic design of structure was provided to enable the bidders to work out the quantity and cost of steel and other materials required for the work and to submit their bids. It is also not in dispute that the financial proposal of defendant No.1 for sum of Rs.110 Crores came to be accepted by the plaintiff and plaintiff has issued letter of intent to the 1st defendant on 29/9/2011. It is also not in dispute that after issuance of such letter of intent, plaintiff issued amendment to the letter of intent on 15/10/2011 and as per the said amendment several proposals issued to the CT 1390_Com.A.S.802016_Judgment .doc 1st defendant by the plaintiff culminated in issuance of above said letter of intent together with tender documents.