Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

66. The Petitioner has contended that the Arbitral Tribunal has erroneously held that the Petitioner has wrongfully terminated the Contract. It is their contention that the delay in performance of the said Contract i.e. delay in issuance of the basic plans and engineering design / drawings had resulted in the Termination Notice to complete minimal action on design and engineering within 30 days thereof. There is reliance upon the period within which the Respondent was to complete the works under the said Contract i.e. to construct, erect, install the modernized Effluent Treatment Plant and provide facilities for air-conditioning, ventilation, testing, painting, lining, insulation, commissioning and guaranteeing the entire modernization of ETP. These contentions are in my view misplaced and are contrary to the plain reading of the said Contract as well as J-CARBP 648.2021.doc the documents on record / evidence which was before the Arbitral Tribunal and appreciated by them.

69. The Petitioner's reliance on the work to be completed within a period of 32 months from the date of issuance of the LoA and there being delay in issuance of basic plans and engineering design / drawings is entirely misplaced. The issuance of the basic plans and engineering designs / drawings by the Petitioner cannot be read in isolation as the prime activity was the disposal of sludge, without which the construction work could not commence.

J-CARBP 648.2021.doc