OMP Nos. 23, 213 and 419/2013 Page 1 of 34

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

O.M.P. 23/2013

CHENNAI –ENNORE PORT ROAD CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma

with Ms. Sahiti Kachroo and Mr.

Mayank Sapra, Advocates.

versus

RDS PROJECT LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Asha Jain Madan and

Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocates.

WITH

+

O.M.P. 213/2013

CHENNAI –ENNORE PORT ROAD CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma with Ms.

Sahiti Kachroo and Mr. Mayank Sapra,

Advocates.

versus

RDS PROJECT LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Asha Jain Madan and

Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocates.

AND

O.M.P. 419/2013

CHENNAI –ENNORE PORT ROAD CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner

2015:DHC:3682

OMP Nos. 23, 213 and 419/2013 Page 2 of 34

Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma with Ms.

Sahiti Kachroo and Mr. Mayank Sapra,

Advocates.

versus

RDS PROJECT LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Asha Jain Madan and

Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

J U D G M E N T

%

23.04.2015

1. These are three petitions by the Chennai-Ennore Port Road

Company Ltd. („CEPRCL‟) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 („Act‟) challenging three separate Awards

rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal („AT‟) in three references made to it

regarding disputes that arose between the Petitioners and the

Respondent RDS Project Ltd. („RDSPL‟) out of a formal agreement

signed between them on 20^th May 2003 for execution of „Sea

Protection work along the Ennore Expressway” in Chennai.

Background

2. The Petitioner is a Special Purpose Vehicle of the National

Highways Authority of India („NHAI‟). Clause 1.1 of the agreement

defines the scope of works. The Petitioner was required to construct

10 Groyne rigid hydraulic wooden/concrete structures built to

2015:DHC:3682

OMP Nos. 23, 213 and 419/2013 Page 3 of 34

interrupt water flow and limit the movement of sediment in sea/ocean

which are found used in tandem with seawalls.

3. Under Clause 1.1 of the agreement, the scope of works was

specified as under:

(i) Identification of quarries for supply of stones of required

specifications.

(ii) Arranging transportation of these stones from the quarries to the

work sites and

(iii) Construction of Groynes according to the specific design,

standards and specifications.

4. There were three separate schedules of quantities for Groyne Fields.

Schedule A1 specified the quantities for Groyne Fields I and II.

Schedule A2, the quantities for construction of 500m long sea wall

north of the northern most Groyne No. 6 in Groyne Field I and

Schedule A3, the quantities for strengthening of sea walls between

groynes in Groyne Field I and Groyne Field II.

5. Since the construction was peculiar as it was to be carried out

underwater, the contract provided for separate bills of quantities

(„BOQs‟) for different layers of the work to be constructed by the

Respondent. The quantities were to be paid in metric tons („MT‟) basis

and this would account for the fact that there was a difference in the

quantities of stones brought on site and those forming part of the

2015:DHC:3682

OMP Nos. 23, 213 and 419/2013 Page 4 of 34

finished work since there could be some amount of stones that would

sink with the waves. The method for measuring the executed

quantities for the purposes of payment under the BOQ was also

provided in the agreement.

6. The layers w