Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

v. Failure to commence site activity causing a delay of more than 2 years, even though land for the coal lab, core shed and training centre was provided to you on February 9, 2012.

vi. Failures to complete ground survey work for infrastructure by January 29, 2011 vide Operational Plan. vii. Failure to complete the basic engineering drawings for infrastructure within the stipulated timeline".

iv. Occurrence of Event of Default under clause 24.3(b)(iii) of the Project Agreement i.e. failure to make satisfactory progress or achieve milestones in accordance with the agreed Operational Plan specified at clause 8.2(a) (duly considering any extension under clause 8.3 or subsequently);

v. Occurrence of Event of Default under clause 24.3(b)(xiii) and 24.3(b)(xiv) of the Project Agreement i.e. failure to commence site activity under clause 8.2(c) and Work Schedule for Constructing Fixed Infrastructure Facilities annexed to the Operational Pan - causing a delay of more than 2 years, even though land for the coal lab, core shed and training centre was provided to you on February 9, 2012; vi. Occurrence of Event of Default under clause 24.3(b)(iii) of the Project Agreement i.e. a delay of more than 11 months in the execution of the Basic Engineering Drawings (submitted on November 16, 2011) in contravention of the Work Schedule for Constructing Fixed Infrastructure Facilities annexed to the Operational Plan.

f. Basic Engg drawings for infrastructure were submitted on 15.11.2011 with a delay of 11 months. Revised GA drawings of Vocational Training Centre, Coal Lab, Core shed were approved on 23.02.2012. Balance GA drawings are yet to be submitted by you for approval of NTPC".

63. The petitioner was called upon to show-cause within thirty days from the date of the said notice as to why action in terms of clause 24.4 of the project agreement should not be taken against the petitioner for the events of defaults aforesaid. After considering the petitioner's reply to the said show- cause notice, the parties entered into "good faith discussions" in terms of clause 24.4(c), clause 23.1(b) and clause 8.3(b). The respondent agreed to extend the time period for development stage by a further period of 360 days by granting extension up to 11.02.2014. Therefore, on the expiry of the extended period on 11.02.2014, the petitioner ought to have completed the development stage work. Merely because the petitioner may have made some progress in the execution of the development stage work, though not completed the same, prima-facie, it was not necessary for the respondent to again issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner, and to again enter into good faith discussions, and again grant extension of time for completion of the development stage work. If the submission of the petitioner - that after expiry of the extended period (as a result of good faith discussions) it was incumbent on the respondent to again issue a show-cause notice, and again hold good faith discussions, and necessarily grant extension of time for completion of development stage work, were to be accepted, it would become an unending exercise and the purpose of fixing the period within which the development stage work had to be completed would be lost.