Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Mr. Seervai next contended that the Tribunal wrongly held that the submission of basic engineering drawings by the respondent constituted less than 5% of the Contract value and that removal of the sludge was the major work. It was urged that the submission of UEM-approved drawings constituted a fundamental precondition for execution of the project. The commercial weightage assigned to the drawings cannot be determinative of its importance for the project. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that without duly approved engineering drawings, no further work on the ETP could have proceeded. Mr. Seervai submitted that the respondent's admission of its inability to furnish UEM-approved drawings amounted to the breach of a fundamental contractual obligation, justifying the termination of the Contract. It was contended that despite the Tribunal recording findings acknowledging the necessity of UEM's involvement, it failed to appreciate the legal consequences thereof.