IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation, Water Resources Department, Thane (west) - Appellant
Versus
M/s. F A Enterprises A Partnership Firm Having - Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Petition (Ldg ) No. 681 of 2019; Arbitration Petition No. 793 of 2019; Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 921 of 2019
Decided On : 19-05-2020
JUDGMENT
R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By consent of parties, all the aforesaid petitions filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act) were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.681 of 2019 is filed by Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "KIDC" for the sake of convenience). The said KIDC has impugned the majority award dated 3rd April, 2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the KIDC to pay to the respondent no.1 i.e. M/s.F.A. Enterprises Rs.303 crores approximately with other directions (hereinafter refered to as 'claimant'). Commercial Arbitration Petition No.793 of 2019 is filed by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CIDCO" for the sake of convenience) inter-alia praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 3rd April, 2019 insofar as the same is against the CIDCO. Commercial Arbitration Petition No.921 of 2019 is filed by the State Government inter-alia praying for setting aside the impugned award dated 3rd April, 2019. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under :
2. It is the case of KIDC that to cater the need of drinking water for industrial purpose in sub region-6, Panvel and sub-region - 8, Urban Metropolitan region, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Minster, WRD, Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Government of Maharashtra. It was decided in the said meeting to construct Balganga Dam. In the meeting held on 28th January, 2009 and the officers of KIDC , Water Supply Department of CIDCO and MMRDA, it was decided to execute Balganga Dam for CIDCO instead of SEZ. It is the case of KIDC that CIDCO was also desirous of developing the water resources for its expanding areas in Navi Mumbai. The management of CIDCO agreed to provide the capital fund for the construction of the dam on Balganga river, near village,Niphad,Talula Pen, District Raigad. CIDCO approved the funds of approximately Rs.488 crores for construction of the said Balganga Dam.
3. Kidc prepared D.P.R. based on old data which was available with the Thane Irrigation Circle and submitted to Water Resources Department on 6th February, 2009. In the board meeting of CIDCO held on 24th February, 2009, a resolution was passed to execute Balganga project for the CIDCO and accorded administrative approval to the said project. It was decided that the work shall be executed by KIDC and shall be funded by the CIDCO. The Chief Engineer, WRD, technically sanctioned the dam portion work based on DPR submitted on 24th February, 2009 and invited the tender for construction of Balganga project.
4. In the meeting held under the chairmanship of the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, it was decided that the CIDCO would bear the capital cost of the development of the Balganga project and also get the ownership right of the water of the dam. In the month of February, 2009, the KIDC invited the tenders for work of construction of Balganga dam for an amount of Rs.353.89 crores. It is the case of the KIDC that the said Balganga dam was to be constructed by the KIDC on deposit basis where the funding agency for the construction of the said dam was CIDCO.
5. On 23rd September, 2009, the KIDC and CIDCO entered into an agreement for such funding and for other related issues on the terms and conditions recorded in the said agreement. The claimant submitted the bid in response to the said tender notice. The bid of the claimant was found to be the lowest bid. On 1st April, 2009, the claimant submitted the revised copy of the quotation and revised the cumulative percentage from 59.16% to 55.50% above the tender cost. The said amount came to Rs.550.299 crores. The claimant however, submitted its final offer of tender on 21st April, 2009 to the Chief Engineer and revised the cumulative percentage from 55.40% to 40% above the
Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. M/s.Great Estern Shipping Company Limited
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Ors. v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs.SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors
Delhi Development Authority Vs.Kenneth Builders & Developers (P) Ltd
Directorate of Education and others vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Others
Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar and Ors. v/s. The State of Ajmer and Ors.
Firm Bachraj Amolakchand & Anr. Vs.Firm Nandlal Sitaram & Ors.
Food Corporation of India Vs.Chandu Construction & Anr
Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad Vs.Savjibhai Haribhai Patel
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs. M. Krishnaswami Mudhaliar and another
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Raj Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Des Raj & Ors.
Sharma and Associates Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Progressive Constructions Ltd
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.