Summary: The Delhi High Court dismissed a complaint by M/S Ircon International Limited against a decision that favored M/S Cannon Engineering Construction. The court agreed with claims for digging through hard rock and using tie bolts, while changing the interest terms.
In this case, M/S Ircon International Limited and M/S Cannon Engineering Construction had a contract dated November 5, 2014, to build service buildings, a loco shed, and more for the Solapur Super Thermal Power Project in Maharashtra. Arguments started over claims related to digging through hard rock and using tie bolts in concrete walls.
Digging Through Hard Rock (Claim No. 1): M/S Cannon Engineering Construction asked for more money for digging through hard rock, which was not included in the original contract. The Tribunal agreed and awarded Rs. 1,17,55,347.74.
Using Tie Bolts (Claim No. 2): M/S Cannon Engineering Construction said that tie bolts were needed and not included in the contract. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 54,08,398.79.
Other Claims: Claims for finishing surfaces were turned down, but repayment for increased government taxes was approved.
Judges Involved: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Digging Through Hard Rock: The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision that the material was hard rock, based on site checks and expert reports, rejecting M/S Ircon International Limited's argument that it was ordinary rock.
Using Tie Bolts: The court agreed with the Tribunal that using tie bolts was necessary and not included in the existing contract prices.
Interest and Costs: The court changed the Tribunal's decision regarding interest, citing contract rules, but agreed with future interest as per legal rules.
M/S Ircon International Limited's Stand: Claimed that the Tribunal's decisions went against contract terms, especially about the type of materials and permission for extra work.
M/S Cannon Engineering Construction's Defense: Argued that the Tribunal's decisions were based on real evidence and expert opinions, matching the contract's terms.
The Delhi High Court saw no reason to change the Tribunal's decision, except for adjusting the interest part. The complaint was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's role in understanding contract disagreements and factual decisions.
