Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Claimant Memo Final

Claimant Memo Final

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 80|Likes:
Published by aneesh13

More info:

Published by: aneesh13 on Jul 03, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/06/2009

pdf

text

original

 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ARTICLES
Lew, “The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Clause”, ICCACongress Series No.14, 1998, Paris
BOOKS
Commercial Arbitration, 1982 Edition
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 2
DICTIONARY
Black’s Law Dictionary, (Brian A. Garner ed., 7
th
ed., West Group, 1991)
 Judicial Dictionary 14
th
edition; Lexis Nexis ;(Butterworths)
STATUTES
CIAC Rules
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
General clauses act,1897
FOREIGN STATUTES AND INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
UNCITRAL
Convention of International Sale of Goods,1980
United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of ForeignArbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958
WEBSITES
www.manupatra.com
www.legalpundits.com
www.helplinelaw.com
www.indlaw.com
www.judis.com
www.supremecourtonline.com
www.ciac.in
www.kaplegal.com
 
TABLE OF CASES
Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 48X.L. Insurance Ltd. v. Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 500Deewan Singh and Ors. v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and Ors, AIR 2007 SC 767Secretary to the Government, Transport Department Mashas Vs. Munuswamy AIR1988 SC 2232British Sugar Plc v NEI Power Projects Ltd ([1998] 87 BLR 42)Hotel Services Ltd v Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd. [2004] 3 Lloyd’s Rep 35Chiemgauer Membran Und Zeltbau Gmbh v New Millennium Experience CompanyLimited, [2000] 56 BLR 31.Hadley v Baxendale ([1854] 9 Exch 341)Ferris v. Plaister (1994) SC NSWTan Poh Leng Stanely v Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey. HC (Singapore), Nov 30, 2000Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Delhi is and has been in anticipation of the Commonwealth Games whichis to be held in the city in 2010. Government of Delhi invited tenders forthe construction of a bridge over the Yamuna River connecting thecommonwealth village to main city on a public private participation. Afterthe evaluation of the bids, a consortium led by RMC & Co, a reputedIndian construction company and KUTSCO, a large Korean Chaebolhaving offices all over the world including Singapore won the tender. RMC& Co, though it had vast expertise in the area did not have theinfrastructural support to complete such a large project on its own.KUTSCO had all the necessary expertise and technology for the job. RMC& Co and KUTSCO formed a company BEHEMOTH INTERNATIONAL(PVT) LTD (hereinafter BEHEMOTH) for the purpose of entering intoconcession agreement. Some of the political parties raised the objectionthat project work was in effect being allotted to a foreign company i.e.KUTSCO and the Indian company was merely an observer. TheGovernment allayed their fears by releasing a press statement that thoughKUTSCO had a 60 % investment/stake in BEHEMOTH both the RMCGroup as well as the Chaebol had equal say when it came to issues ofmanagement of the Company and running its activities.2. Govt. of Delhi(
hereinafter GO
D) issued the letter of acceptance dated 9 thDecember 2005 (LOA) to the consortium requiring, inter alia, theirexecution of this concession Agreement within 45 days of the date thereof.3. The Concession Agreement was entered into and signed in Singaporebetween GOD and BEHEMOTH on 24 th of January, 2006. As per theagreement, the construction of the bridge was to be undertaken by theconcessionaire in conformity with the project milestone set forth inSchedule “A”4. The Scope of work included performance and execution of all design,engineering, financing, procurement, construction, completion, operationand maintenance of the project bridge. It also included construction ofapproach roads on either side of the bridge in accordance withspecification and standard and operation and maintenance thereof inaccordance with this agreement.5. One Mr. K Chatjee was appointed as Independent Engineer by GOD on4 th of March 2006. The concessionaire was informed of the said appointment. Mr.Chatjee was earlier employed with KUTSCO. Hisemployment had been terminated on various grounds of misconduct andhence BEHEMOTH wrote a letter to GOD questioning his ‘independence’.GOD argued that it was difficult to find someone as qualified andexperienced as Mr. Chatjee for the job. The same was true. After a backand forth volley of letters on this issue, GOD prevailed over BEHEMOTH

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->