Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ii. Following the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (hereinafter referred as 'MoRT&H') issued a circular dated 03.06.2020 under the "Atmanirbhar Bharat: Relief for contractor/Developers of road sector" (hereinafter referred to as the "MoRT&H Circular"), with an aim to maintain cash flow of contractor. The said circular relaxation the applicability of Schedule H of monthly Stage Payment Schedule (hereinafter referred to as "SPS") to contractor for the work done and accepted as per specification of contract during the month under EPC/HAM contract. Thereafter, MoRT&H vide circular dated 31.12.2020 extended the period of relief measure related to relaxation of Schedule H. iii. Vide letter dated 26.04.2022, the EPC Contractor submitted SPS-15 for the period 01.03.2022 to 31.03.2022, claiming Rs. 49,44,75,052 against value of work done. On 28.04.2022, after scrutinizing SPS-15, the Petitioner recommended the authority to release Rs. 41.65 Crore after withholding certain amounts. iv. Subsequently, vide letter dated 15.07.2022, the EPC Contractor submitted SPS-16 for the period of April-May 2022 amounting to Rs. 12.84 Crore against value of work done. The Petitioner, through its then Team Leader, returned the same on 11.08.2022, requesting revision in light of the de-scoping of the Brahmani Bridge amounting to Rs. 57.74 Crores, as per Competent Authority approval dated 24.06.2022.

9(iv) As was rightly argued by Learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant, which submission has been noted by the Tribunal in para 6(ii) above, the dispute between the parties lay within a small matrix of fact related to the release of payment to the EPC Contractor under Stage Payment Statement-15 (SPS-15). The arguments of Learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant pertaining to SPS-16 and the exhibits referred to by Learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant only bring home the point that when SPS-16 was submitted the issue of de- scoping of a major bridge over Brahmani River at Km 401.250 was simultaneously being discussed and this delayed the finalization of SPS-16 and by the time SPS- 16 was finalized for release of payment to the EPC Contractor, the excess payment alleged by the Respondent to have been paid to the EPC Contractor upon recommendation of the Claimant got subsumed for the reason the works which as per the Respondent were not to be included for payment under SPS-15 got completed and to that extent no loss was caused to the Respondent. At best, a payment, not due when the payment was made under SPS-15 was released by the Respondent to the EPC Contractor. But the issue would be whether the Claimant breached its obligation to scrutinize SPS-15 as required by the contract between the parties.