National Highways Authority Of ... vs M/S. Pcl Suncon (Jv) on 14 October, 2014

reserved on: 25.09.2014 % Judgment delivered on:14.10.2014 + OMP 48/2013 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .... Petitioner Versus M/S. PCL SUNCON (JV) ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :       Ms. Meenakshi Sood and Mr. Mukesh Kumar,
                          Advocates
For the Respondent :      Mr. Amit George, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER,J

1. Shorn of verbiage and technical claptrap; much of which has been examined closely by a three member arbitral tribunal by an unanimous award, the core issue, which has been raised before me is, as follows :- 1.1 Whether (notwithstanding the fact that the contract obtaining between the parties did not provide for the source from which Crushed Rubber Modified Bitumen (in short CRMB) had to be obtained to execute the work entrusted to the respondent), the petitioner could insist that CRMB had to be sourced from a refinery?

1.2. The aforesaid issue (which has been answered by the arbitral tribunal in favour of the respondent), has led to the following claims being awarded in favour of the respondent :

OMP 48/2013 Page 1 of 17

(i). The difference in costs between CRMB of Grade 60/70, being blended at site; and that, which was sourced from the refinery.

(ii). The transportation cost in ferrying the CRMB from the refinery to the sit