Charges relate to a wasn’t tendered out to the lowest bid- der – the preferred way to determine sub-contracting deal market rates – instead of giving it to between the two firms DCI on a nomination basis, resulting in “unjust gain to DCI” from sub-con- for work at JNPT tracting the work at a lower value.
P MANOJ Seeking refund
Mumbai, September 5 Dredging industry sources said that Dredging contractor Van Oord India this was the first such instance in the has filed a petition in the National sector where the employer (JNPT) is Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seek- seeking refund from the dredging ing to recover unpaid dues of ₹93.12 contractor (DCI). crore from Dredging Corporation of It is considered significant because India (DCI) on a contract it had under- DCI is now part-owned by JNPT. taken at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port In a strategic disinvestment deal, Vi- Trust (JNPT) on behalf of DCI. sakhapatnam Port Trust, Paradip Port The petition seeks to initiate cor- Trust, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and porate insolvency resolution process Deendayal Port Trust together ac- (CIRP) against DCI under quired the Central govern- Section 8 and 9 of the In- ment’s 73.47 per cent stake solvency and Bankruptcy in DCI for ₹1,056 crore in Code (IBC). March 2019. Wiser from the Van Oord India is the experience of spending wholly-owned Indian unit more than the market rates of Dutch dredging giant for annual dredging in the Van Oord Dredging and first year of the contract, Marine Contracting Co. JNPT decided not to pay the NV. full amount estimated by DCI for the second and Contract on nomination basis third year’s work. Instead, JNPT said it The unpaid dues relate to a sub-con- will only pay DCI the amount it final- tracting deal between DCI and Van ised with the sub-contractor, plus a 10 Oord at JNPT, India’s biggest State-run per cent extra as supervision/project container port. management consultancy charges. In 2019, DCI secured a three-year an- DCI sub-contracted the second nual maintenance dredging contract year’s work to Van Oord India, which from JNPT on nomination basis was completed in March. The unpaid (without a tender). dues for the work done is the subject In the first year’s contract, DCI out- matter of the petition filed before sourced a big portion of the work to NCLT. another contractor, ISDPL, making Van Oord India declined to com- “extra money” in the process. ment on the NCLT petition, which was JNPT later sought refund of the “ex- filed on August 31. tra money” from DCI to avoid poten- GYV Victor, Managing Director and tial adverse observations or queries Chief Executive Officer of DCI, said the from the government auditor, the company was yet to receive any notice Comptroller and Auditor General of from NCLT on the petition. He de- India (CAG), on why the contract clined to discuss the matter further.