PLL-PCL Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE measurement of the surface drain constructed by M/s Punj Lloyd Limited � Progressive Construction Company Limited (Joint Venture) ('JV'), as part of the work of the construction of Jaipur Bypass, Phase-II, Zone-D connecting NH-8 and NH-11 Rajasthan awarded to the JV by the Respondent-National Highways Authority of India ('NHAI') by an agreement dated 8th October 2001, formed the subject matter of the dispute raised by the JV before a three member arbitral Tribunal ('AT'). THE question was whether payment for the lined surface drain was to be made as per Technical Specification ('TS') Clause 309.4 as contended by the JV or as per the running metre mode of measurement indicated in the Bill of Quantities ('BoQ') Item No. 6.11 as contended by the NHAI. THE majority Award dated 2nd July 2006 of two members of the AT negatived the plea of the JV and held that payments had to be made for the surface drain work measured in lined metres at the rate of Rs.166.37 per metre. After providing for 7% contractual rebate, the sum payable by the NHAI to the JV was determined at Rs.45,09,743 with future simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the Award till the date of payment. THE dissenting member, on the other hand, held that the payment had to be made strictly as per TS Clause 309.4.

(2.) THE Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Tanu Priya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI.

(3.) THE case of the Petitioner was that the rate of Rs.159 per meter was quoted for a "sub-surfaced drain". According to the Petitioner, in terms of the modified provision of TS Clause 309.4 as applicable to the work at hand, the work of surface drain was to be measured in the respective units of various items of construction work involved in excavation, brickwork, stone masonry or concrete, the measurement for which and the rates of which were set out in separate clauses. Further, the Petitioner contended that the drawing for the surface drain specified the construction in Coursed Rubble Stone ('CRS') Masonry in 1:6 cement sand mortar and 20 mm thick cement plaster. THEre was a BoQ item No. 6.06 for the Random Rubble Stone ('RRS') Masonry in 1:3 cement mortar. THE Petitioner used RRS as CRS was not available locally. However, NHAI neither accepted the procedure for alternative specification nor did it approve the modes of measurement suggested by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner claimed that up to 31st March 2005 it had executed the work of surface drain worth Rs.2,74,81,418 based on the measurement of different components as individual items. THE amount was claimed with simple interest at 12% per annum.