Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: procured document in Dakshin Bharat Gateway Terminal vs V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust on 22 February, 2022Matching Fragments
27. In these circumstances, can it be said that the refusal of the Arbitral Tribunal to accept the estimated project cost as at financial close warrants interference? The finding at paragraph 108 is largely on the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis basis that the Petitioner failed or refused to provide a copy of the contract which was entered into by it with ZPMC. The reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal appears to be that the said contract would have indicated the cost of the RMQCs, which were proposed to be acquired from ZPMC, and thereby the basis of the estimated project cost of Rs.265.60 crores could be discerned. In addition, the additional cost could have been arrived at, provided the cost of procurement of the same equipment from LCC was on record. It should be noticed that the said contract per se would not indicate the total project cost or even the total capital expenditure prior to change in law. For instance, even as regards equipment, it would not have indicated the cost of RTGCs, the reach stacker, and tractors/trailers. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that the change in law event was the insistence on and subsequent refusal to grant security clearance for RMQCs to be procured from ZPMC, this document would be material to determine the capital expenditure on one of the principal equipments, and to compute the additional cost if the cost of procurement from LCC was available. Thus, it appears that the failure or refuse of the Petitioner to produce documents indicating the cost of procurement from ZPMC resulted at least partly in the conclusion that the basis of the cost estimate of Rs.265.60 crores is uncertain. It should also not _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis be lost sight of that an arbitral tribunal is empowered to decide on the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of evidence. To that extent, the Arbitral Tribunal did not commit a patent illegality in drawing an adverse inference by attaching materiality or weight to the non-production of such evidence by the Petitioner.