Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Professor D.N. Singh of the Geology Department of IIT also stated that the rigid raft of the barrage would bridge over the micro-cavities formed, as sand was not a continuum stratum.

.

The requirements under the IS code were satisfied. The design was BIS Code compliant and as per Khosla Theory, which is trade practice. The Burenkova Theory could not be relied upon as it was not included in the relevant code and standard. The of instructions by the respondent was based upon the Burenkova Theory, which is beyond the codal stipulation. The claimant was rt bound to meet the standards under the BIS Code, which was satisfied in the present case. The reduction in the length of the barrage was made with mutual consent. The claimant submitted a design report in June 2011 and 2012 based upon the relevant provisions of IS:6966, as applicable and stipulated under the contract. This design report was approved and adopted by the respondent. There were several changes in the dimensions of the structure. The claimant provided the design as per the studies of the Irrigation and Power Research Institute, Amritsar.

formed part of the bid documents. Various reports from the Geological Survey of India based on the investigation carried out by the respondent till 2008-2009 showed the presence of ±5 meter thick sand layer between the depth of 16.5 meters and of 20.5 meters, which could prove vulnerable to piping and liquefaction. However, no report referred to the concept of rt suffusion and the plea of the respondent that this possibility should have been kept in mind while designing the project was not acceptable. The respondent corroborated the sufficiency/safety of the structure as per the prevalent practice of the BIS Code. Permeation grouting did not form part of the contract, the Indian standards/codes or the trade practices. The claimant was responsible for planning design, engineering and execution of entire civil and hydro-mechanical works as per the Bureau of Indian Standards. International Standards and Practices were to be followed in the absence of any of the parameters. The scope of the work was limited to those works, which could be inferred from bidding documents or provided in the contract. The possibility of suffusion was not specified under the contract despite the availability of the result of geological investigations carried out by it for six years and investigations conducted by the claimant for three years. Permeation grouting .

did not form part of the contract or Indian Standard/Code or Trade Practices. Curtain grouting and permeation grouting were different and the plea of the respondent that they were the same was not acceptable. The permeation grouting was provided due of to the apprehension of M/s LII for the possibility of suffusion and overlookingrt the conclusion that the situation was marginally safe. The employer cannot compel the contractor to carry out any work, which is beyond the scope of the original work. The permeation grouting was provided as a remedial measure and constituted a variation. Learned Arbitral Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹5,26,59,318/- and interest of ₹77,60,714/- only. The amount was ordered to be paid within 90 days and in case of default, a simple interest @15% per annum was ordered to be paid from the date of the award until the date of actual payment.

29. It is not in dispute that the claimant was required to adhere to IS Code Standard and where the standards were not provided, the recourse was to be had to international standards.

In the present case, the BIS standard was available. M/s LII did not state that the design was not as per the Indian Standard .

Codes and trade practices. It relied upon the Burenkova Theory, which is not included in the Bureau of Indian Standards.