Claim No. 1: - Payment against 79th RAR for Rs. 1.

97 Crores: -

 The Averments made in the para is denied, as the respondent has already commented on the short
comings in 79 RAR at Para No. 21. The claimant received the 79th RAR from the respondent via
its letter dated 18-12-2019, and the respondent requested the claimant to submit the requisite
documents via its letter dated 19-12-2019 (CD-12).
 The letter dated 19-02-2020 (CD-12 page 693) states that the company maintained silence, abandoned the work site, and
provided lame excuses after a few months.
 However, the claimant's attitude towards completing work and pursuing RAR payment was
pathetic, baffling, lacked team spirit and the needful compliance as requested via letter dated 19-
12-2018 (CD-12) was omitted by the claimant.
 Furthermore, the claimant had already availed an over payment from the respondent for an
amount exceeding Rs. 20.60 Crores, which was leviable from the claimant. Overpayment
compensation due to delay, as per condition 44 of GCC (page no. 102 of CD12) , leviable from claimant. The
claim of Rs. 1.97 Crores is not tenable and liable to be dismissed.

Claim No. 2: - On account of final bill for Rs. 547,35,890.20

2.1 The contract was terminated due to the claimant's disability. Clause 52 (page 106 of CD-2) of the
contract requires physical site measurements. After termination of contract on 15-09-2020 the respondent
invited the claimant's representative to measure details, but the claimant did not respond. Therefore, any
delay in finalizing measurements is not attributable to the respondent.

2.2 & 2.3 The claim against CD-18 is denied due to the claimant's failure to provide proper documentary
evidence and support the claim with correct details. The claimant's work done claim of Rs.
221,02,59,334/- is incorrect and denied, as are the escalation claims for labour, cement, and steel. The
claimant also fails to include details of plant and machinery, hire charges, idling, short payment,
escalation, and pending deviation orders. The contractor profit at 15% on the balance job is arbitrarily
claimed, and overhead charges are not considered. The claim is not tenable due to the fundamental
breaches committed by the claimant.

2.4 The claimant's para averments are denied, and the claim is liable to be dismissed due to the lack of
explanation for its tenable figure of Rs. 547,35,890.20.

2.5 The final bill was rejected vide RD-14 (Page- 1230 to 1233). Claim No. 3 on a/c of Bank Guarantee
for Rs. 10.18 Crores.

Claim no. 3: On a/c of bank gurantee for Rs. 10.18 crores

3.1 Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the invocation of the bank
guarantees by the respondent was in contravention of the terms of the Bank Guarantees.

3.2 No. Comments.

3.3 Averments made in the para are denied. The respondent is well within its right to invoke the bank
guarantees because it is an independent and a separate contract and is absolute in nature.

3.4 The averments in the para are denied, with the guarantee only being invoked if the agreement
is terminated under clause 48 (c) or 48 (d). The bank guarantees the respondent in case of breach,
allowing them to invoke the guarantee without delay. The bank must honor the guarantee upon
demand that the claim is due, damages are caused, or the claimant fails to perform covenants.
(CD-4 page 342 to 373).

3.5 The para averments are denied, stating the respondent didn't notice the first claimant under clause 57,
and the claimant uses technical arguments.

3.6 The Averments made in para is denied, stating that the respondent terminated the contract and blamed
the claimant for delay in finalization of measurement. The respondent denied any intention to cause loss
or enrich itself while invoking bank guarantees. The respondent suffered significant losses and claimant
received over Rs. 20.60 Crores overpayment. The respondent's action to invoke bank guarantees is lawful
and in accordance with the contract terms.

3.7 The para denies the averments about bank guarantees are intended to cause significant loss & stating
that respondent's actions are lawful and in accordance with contract terms.

3.8 The para denies that bank guarantees were wrongfully invoked by the respondent due to the claimant's
failure to perform within stipulated and extended periods. The respondent suffered significant losses due
to the claimant's non-payment of wages, absent supervisory staff, and catastrophic mismanagement. The
claimant disabled themselves to complete the work within reasonable time.

3.9 The respondent is allowed to en-cash bank guarantees due to significant losses and claimant's
omissions, as per contract terms.

3.10 The claimant's claim for 90% completion and well-on-course completion is denied. The respondent
granted 14 time extensions, but no assurances were made. The agreement was cancelled due to the
claimant's disability.

3.11 The para denies averments, stating the respondent invested heavily in a project yet uncompletedand
can invoke bank guarantees due to losses. Claimant is fully responsible for breaches.

3.12 The para's averments are denied, and the claim is dismissed as bank guarantees are separate
contracts, and the respondent may be allowed to encash them due to long harassment suffered.

Claim No.3A - Claim on account of wrongful encashment of bank guarantee Rs. 18,87,00,000/-

3A.1 Matter of record.

3A.2 The Para is denied, specifically denying illegal invocation and encashment of Bank Guarantees and
contravention of terms or contract between parties.

3A.3 The Para's averments are incorrect and denied, including a substantial portion of retention bank
guarantees due to the claimant, unpaid dues, and over-payments. The claimant obtained over-payments,
and the contract terms were violated, causing significant losses for the respondent. The encashment of
bank guarantees was legal and according to the contract terms.

3A.4.The para is denied, stating that the respondent terminated the agreement, failed to complete final
measurements, and failed to submit the final bill in time. The bank guarantees were genuinely due to the
respondent, and the claimant denied returning over-payments and other dues. The respondent was
compelled to treat the breach as repudiation and issue show cause notices to bring the contract to an end.
The claimant's acts indicate material breach and violation of the fundamental terms of the contract,
rendering the contract incapable of performance. The respondent is entitled to receive over-payments and
losses from the claimant, and the question of returning the monies does not arise.

3A.5 Averments made in the para are incorrect and denied that the claimant completed 90% of the work.
The claimant violated contract terms and executed substandard work at site. The delay is solely
attributable to the claimant's lack of resources and mismanagement. The encashment of Bank Guarantees
is legal and strictly in accordance with contract terms.

3A.5 The claimant's wrongful averments and hyper technical arguments in the Para are denying the
contract's termination. The respondent has rightfully invoked and enchased Bank Guarantees, as the
contract was lawfully terminated due to the claimant's abandonment of work.

3A.6 Averments made in the Para are wrong and denied. The respondent pleadings against claim No.3 of
claimant may be read herein as part of the submissions.

Claim No. 4- Loss of profit Rs. 6.94 Crores.

4.1 The termination of the contract was not the sole cause for loss of anticipated profits. There is no
evidence of a real or substantial chance for profit by the claimant. Profit projections at 15% of the balance
work are speculative and cannot be used as a yardstick to claim loss of anticipated profits. Factors such as
financial crunch and inadequate resources deployment at the site contribute to the claim's remoteness. The
claimant has failed to abide by its obligations under contract, lacking infrastructure, finances, and
manpower. Furthermore, they have not taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses, making the claim
without basis and liable to be rejected.

Claim No. 5 Claim on a/c of deviation orders for Rs 24 Crores.

5.1 The claimant was not allowed to alter or omit the works described in the contract, except in accordance with PM written
instruction. Clause 9 of GCC of contract (page 87 of CD-2) denies any delay in payment and claims the respondent refused due
payment. The claimant has taken over payment of approximately Rs. 13 Crores.
(i) Increase in size of Terrace Slab in OR Block for Rs. 5.85 Crores.
The claimant is denied averments in the para, claiming they are misleading and not present at the Hon'ble Tribunal.
The work was awarded on 10-03-2010, and the structural drawing was revised on 28-10-2010 due to a mismatch,
(available at page 1189 & 1190 of CD-20. ) The claimant's architectural drawings prevailed, and no extra was
payable. The respondent responded(vide letter dated 13-02- 2020 (page 1500-1509 of CD-21), stating the decision
of accepting the officer was final and binding. The claim is therefore not tenable and liable to be rejected.

(ii) Excavation of entire foundation in lieu of individual footing in ORS, JCOS and officer blocks
for Rs. 2.14 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. Claimant is trying to mislead by wrongful averments
and has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The excavation was done by
the claimant in the manner convenient to it. As per clause 35 and 36 on page 96 of contract
the claimant was not to lay any foundation until the excavation was examined and approved
by respondent. Refer respondent letter dated 23-09-2013 (page 1465-66 of CD-21) as well as
letter dated 24-09-2013 at page 1467, letter dated 03-12-2013 at page 1470, letter dated 12-
12-2013 at page 1471, letter dated 11-05-2018 at page 1480-1481, letter dated 08-06-2018 at
page 1484, letter dated 26-06-2018 at page 1490 as well as letter dated 13-02-2020 at page
1500 to 1509 (CD-21). Hence nothing extra was payable as per the terms of the contract and
the decision of the accepting officer was final and binding. Hence the claim is not tenable and
is liable to be dismissed.

(iii) Provision of PS Door Frame, Flush Door, Loft Door, Mosquito proof door shutter, MS
Garage Door, FRP door frame and shutters in officer's block for Rs. 2.71 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the work executed by the
claimant was additional work. The claimant was to complete the residential units in all
respects including door shutters etc. Refer list of works in Section-1 of schedule A of contract
at page no. 24 CD-2. The doors are obviously and fairly intended in the contract to be
provided to complete the dwelling units. Schedule A Note No. 12 on page 18 of (CD-2)
clearly explains the contract intendment. The claimant has not placed architectural drawings
on record before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The respondent, therefore, reserves its right to refer to
such drawings during the course of hearing. The claimant has not placed copies of purchase
vouchers, test reports etc. to support his claim. The claimant did not submit the requisite
details of claims with supporting documents as per contract for enabling the respondent to
physically verify at site and verify the rates etc. from the market. The hidden items like hold
facts, tie bars etc cannot be physically verified now. Hence the claim is also an afterthought.
The details at page 1527 to 1538 supplied now were not supplied at material time to
respondent and are denied. Refer clause 52 of GCC of contract (page 106 of CD-2).

(iv) Provision of study table and kitchen cabinet in ORS, JCOS & officers block for Rs. 2.04
Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. Claimant is trying to mislead by wrongful averments.
CD-23 is having some documents which are not legible at page no. 1569 to 1573. Hence the
respondent is unable to respond fully. However, the claim is not admissible as per the terms
 of contract. Reference is invited to note 5(b) on serial page 12 (R) of contract (page no. 15 of
CD-2) as well as items shown in drawing no. 25 for OR Blocks, drawing no. 59 for JCOs,
drawing no. 68 for officer's block and drawing no. 161 of contract. The decision in this regard
was communicated to claimant vide respondent letter dated 11-09-2019 (page 1578 of CD-
23). The matter was again communicated by respondent to claimant vide letter dated 13-02-
2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21). The decision of the accepting officer is final and
binding. Hence the claim is not tenable and is liable to be rejected.

(v) Provision of dressing table in OR and JCO block for Rs. 1.54 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. The claimant is making contradictory pleadings. On
the one hand the claimant admits that as per particular specifications clause 15.4.3.2 on page
205 (R) of contract a dressing table was to be provided in OR and JCOS block and on the
other it is claiming extra. The claim is an afterthought. The stipulated date of completion for
sample quarters (Phase-1) was 25-09-2010 and the sample of dress in table was prepared and
approved in time. At the time of approval of sample dressing table the claimant did not
express any intent to claim extra. However, after more than nine years the claimant vide letter
dated 28-09-2019 (CD-24) raised the issue. Drawing no. 216 shows details of mirror in dress
in Major (GT) Qrs. Respondent categorically informed claimant vide letter dated 04-10-2019
(page 1580 of CD-24) Page no. 1590 to 1593 are not legible & the respondent is unable to
offer comments. The accepting officer of respondent also did not agree to the claim of
claimant and rejected the same. The decision was intimated to claimant vide letter dated 12-
10-2019 (page 1574 of CD-24). This decision was final and binding. Hence the claima is not
tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

(vi) Provision of additional soil waste pipe in toilet in OR & JCOS Block for Rs. 0.31 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. The payment for additional soil waste pipe in toilet
to the extent admissible is being accounted for in final bill.

(vii) Provision of extra PCC thickness in under floor of OR, JCO & Officer Block for Rs. 0.63
Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that any additional work
outside the scope of the agreement was done by the claimant. The claimant was categorically
informed vide letter dated 26-06-2018 (page 1706 of CD-26) that no price adjustment will be
done. Particular specification clause 11.1.12 on page 193 of contract bars any price
adjustment. The claimant was again intimated by respondent vide its letter dated 13-02-2020
(page 1500 to of 1509 of CD- 21) that no price adjustment is applicable. The decision of the
accepting officer of respondent is final and binding. Hence the claim is not tenable and is
liable to be dismissed.

(viii) Provision of CP grating over floor below wash hand basin and shower and shower of OR,
JCOS and officer block for Rs. 0.10 Crores.
 Averments made in the para are denied. The claim is contrary to the provision of contract. In
fact, a sum of Rs. 26,12,160/- is recoverable from the claimant. Therefore, the claimant was
intimated vide its letter dated 26-08-2019 (page 1754 of CD-27) about the sum recoverable
from it. The claimant was clarified again vide respondent letter dated 11- 09-2019 (page 1757
of CD-27) that the omission of CI Floor trap near shower and dry out balcony in officer,
JCOS and ORS blocks as per drawing no. 125 to 127, 129 to 131, 133 & 134 was to be
accounted for using PVC floor trap instead. The decision of accepting officer in this regard
was also intimated to the claimant vide letter dated 13- 02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-
21). The decision was final and binding. Hence the claim is not tenable and is liable to be
rejected.

(ix) Provision of modicum grade MS Pipe is lieu of light grade pipe hand rail in balconies, terrace
parapet and staircase in officer, JCO and OR block for Rs. 0.46 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that any additional work
outside the scope of agreement was done by the claimant. The I claimant is trying to mislead
by wrongful averments. As per particular specifications clause 16.2.5 on page 209 R of
contract provides for 50 mm dia nominal bore M.S. Pipe. Bore diameter is always the
internal/ inner diameter. However, the claimant is trying to confuse by pleading outer
diameter of pipe used. The matter was clarified vide respondent letter dated 24-10-2018 (page
1778 of CD-28). The respondent further clarified that no deviation is applicable in the matter
vide letter dated 29-11- 2018 (page 1779 of CD-28). The decision of the accepting office of
respondent was also communicated vide its letter dated 13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of
CD-21). The decision was final and binding. Hence the claim is not tenable and is liable to be
dismissed.

(x) Provision of 1.6mm thick aluminium shaft cover in lieu of PVC in officers, JCOS and OR
block for Rs. 0.054 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. The claimant has failed to show how there is a
calculation error of Rs. 5.54 Lakh. The claimant has relied on CD-29 in this regard. However,
the supporting documents do not reveal any discrepancy. In fact, there are number of errors.
For instance, the item at S. No. 3 (5-256) on page 1787 shows a quantity of 0.71 cum whereas
the supporting measurements calculation on page 1788 at S. No. 1 (5-256- 8) shows a
quantity of 1.23 cum. Similarly, it is not clear as to how a rate of Rs. 56.19 is taken for
internal plaster at S. No. 4 on page 1787. Moreover, the basis of deriving rate of sheet is
incorrect as the item being omitted is PVC sheet on flush doors while the item relates to
covering of sanitary pipes. The respondent is also at a loss to measure the hidden items at a
belated stage. The deviation order was admittedly approved by respondent and communicated
to claimant vide letter dated 20-09-2016. The claimant accepted the deviation order and
received payments also. However as late as vide letter dated 13-08-2019 the claimant pointed
out the discrepancy without proper supporting documents. The respondent, therefore,
informed the claimant vide letter dated 13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21). The
 decision of the Accepting Officer of respondent is final and binding. The claimant is
therefore, barred to raise any further claim. Hence the claim is not tenable and is liable to be
rejected.

(xi) Provision of PVC conduit in point wiring in officers, JCOS and OR blocks for Rs. 4.23
Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the provision of PVC
conduit in point wiring is beyond the scope of point wiring. Respondent's stand in the matter
has been consistent and the respondent on its part categorically informed claimant vide letter
dated 30-05-2011 (page 1808 of CD-30) that as per provision of SSR Part-II 2004 the cost of
all material and labour elements for fixing PVC concealed circuits and their fittings is
inclusive in unit rate of point wiring itself. Respondent again informed vide letter dated 19-
01-2012 (page 1809 of CD-30) that claimant claim for conduits separately is not correct and
was not acceptable. The respondent again informed the claimant vide letter dated 09-03-2012
(page 1811 to 1812 of CD-30) that point wiring is inclusive of PVC conduit and fittings as
per contract and that nothing extra is payable. In view of the claimant raising issue again and
again the accepting officer of respondent’s decision in this regard was communicated vide
letter dated 13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21) that no deviation was admissible as
per description of item, Note No. 5 of Schedule A Section Ill as well as specifications of
point wiring. Hence the decision of Accepting Officer is final and binding. The claim is not
tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

(xii) Deviation order for change in specifications of meter panel for officers, JCOS and ORS
blocks for Rs. 1.43 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the work executed by
claimant was additional work outside the scope of the agreement. It is also specifically denied
that any additional payment is pending. The respondent asked the claimant to provide meter
boxes as per the terms of the contract only. The respondent, categorically asked the claimant
vide letter dated 30-11-2018 (page 1837 of CD-31) to not execute any item beyond contract
terms till the finalization of rates as per clause 9 (c) of GCC of contract (page 87 of CD-2).
Clause 9 stipulates that no alteration in, addition to or omission from the works as described
in the contract shall be made by the claimant except written instruction: of respondent. No
such approval was sought by the claimant at any time. In fact, the sample brought by the
claimant was approved. Painting of meter is included in the contract and the item of powder
coating, pre-treatment for degreasing, phosphating- seven tank process is part of the painting
and nothing extra is payable on such account. Other specifications are same with
confirmation being to IS-13779. Hence no additional work is done by the claimant and no
additional payment is admissible. Claimant has not placed on record the proof of payment,
cash vouchers etc. and purchase order annexed is incomplete & stamped "Approval
Awaited". The financial effect worked out by the claimant is not supported with any
documents to prove the claim. The claim is based on surmises and conjectures. The claim is
therefore, not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.
(xiii) Provision of 75mm concrete bend around the edge of interlocking tiles of officers, JCOS and
ORS block for Rs. 0.17 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied, Respondent has already paid the concrete edging of
interlocking tiles in the respective item itself. The same was brought to the notice of claimant
vide letter dated 13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21). Moreover, the claimant has
based its rate on incorrect rate analysis. There was no form work and/ or shuttering. The
element of wastage/ cutting charges of interlocking tile is inclusive in the item of work and
cannot be claimed again. The claim is baseless and is not tenable and is liable to be
dismissed.

(xiv) Provision of side form work for 225mm thick 1200mm wide concrete Saucer Drain for Re.
0.12 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that form work around saucer
drain was beyond the scope of agreement. It cannot be treated as additional work that is
required to be realised through deviation order. A perusal of item no. 3 of Section-V at page
44 of CD-2 will reveal that concrete work in surface channels and drains was to be for
complete work and hence nothing extra is admissible. Moreover, the nature of work was such
that no form work was required or used by claimant to execute the work. No shuttering on
edges was required as concrete of drain was to be laid adjoining road top to ensure smooth
drainage. Whatsoever element of form work/ would was required was adequately covered
under BOQ item no, 6 at page 1868 & 1869 of CD-33. This aspect was clarified by
respondent to claimant vide its letter dated 13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-2). Hence
nothing extra is payment. The claim is, therefore, not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

(xv) Provision of 15mm thick extended plaster and painting work on boundary wall surface for
Re. 0.43 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that there is any requirement
for approval of additional scope for work at military farm. The respondent has accounted for
the work executed by the claimant and nothing extra is payable. In fact, the plaster work and
cement painting thereto is unsatisfactory. In any case the reliance of claimant on CD-34 is
futile as the pages at 1875, 1877 to 1881, 1883 to 1887 are not legible and the respondent is
not able to comment upon the same. In this regard reference is also made to respondent letter
dated 13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21) wherein vide para 19, non-submission of
additional work detail was intimated. The claim is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed

(xvi) Increase in height of boundary wall from 2.40 m to 4.90 m along its railway station at
military farm for Re. 0.21 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that any amount is due on
this account to the claimant. The fact of the matter is that the matter was under discussion for
 settlement of rate for proposed wall. Respondent had clarified the rate position vide its letter
dated 30-08-2018 (page 1935 of CD-35). However, the claimant kept on adopting dilatory
tactics and the work was not executed at site. Hence no payment is due in this regard. The
claim is wholly without factual basis and is liable to be dismissed.

(xvii) Provision of aluminium sheet cladding for SNAP on lagging over hot water pipe for solar
water heating system in officer, JCOS and OR blocks for Re. 1.61 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. The claimant is trying to mislead by reading the
BOQ item in isolation. The terms and conditions of the contract need to be read in harmony.
Reference is invited to Schedule 'A' Note No. 2 on page 14 of CD-2. Accordingly, the
description of services are deemed to be amplified and read in harmony. Reference is invited
to schedule 'A' note no. 2 on page 14 of CD-2. Accordingly, the description of services are
deemed to be amplified and read in conjunction with particular specifications etc. There are
mutually explanatory to one another. Particular specification for solar heaters is given in
clause 25 on page 248 of CD-2. Clause 25.4.2 on page 250 clearly requires provision of 22
SWG of aluminium chadding. The respondent therefore categorically informed claimant vide
letter dated 01-02-2019 (page 1989-1990 of CD-36). As complete letter is not placed on
record by the claimant a copy is submitted herewith. As no deviation order was admissible
the decision of Accepting Officer of respondent was also communicated to claimant vide
letter dated 13-02-2020 at para 21 (page 1500 to 1501 of CD-21). The decision of respondent
was final and bindings. Hence the claim is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

(xviii) Provision of fancy type quarter turn CP 15MM dia short body bib cock, long body bib cock,
wall mixer, basin mixer, sink lock, angle valve, two-way bib cock two-way angle cock and
225mm long 15mm dia shower arm in lieu of screw down CP5mm dia fancy type short bib
cock, long body bib cock, wall mixer, sink cock, angle cock for Rs. 2.44 Crores. The
respondent has taken into account whatsoever items have been completed in all respects and
nothing more is due to the claimant. Hence the claim for additional payment is baseless and is
liable to be dismissed.

(xix) Payment of earthwork for Re. 1.67 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that recording the work in
measurement book was the responsibility of respondent's consultant as per clause 1k of page
82 of CD-2. The claimant is trying to read the contract terms in isolation. The contract terms
need to be read in harmony. In fact, as per clause 52 on page 106 of CD-2 the measurements
were to be taken jointly by the authorised persons of claimant and respondent. The claimant
was found wanting in this regard. Refer respondent letter dated 08-07-20169 (page 21781 of
CD-38), dated 29-07-2019 (page 2173 of CD-38), dated 02-08-2019 (page 2176 of CD-38),
dated 17-08-2019 (page 2179-2180 of CD-381, dated 11-10- 2019 (page 2188 of CD-38), &
dated 28-10-2019 (page 2189 of CD-38). In the absence of supporting documents there was
delay which was not attributable to respondent Page no. 2142, 2144, 2145, 2168, 2169, of
CD-38 are not legible and the respondent is not able to respond. In any case the respondent
 has accounted for complete work done by the claimant and nothing extra is payable. The
claim is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

(xx) Payment of earth filling in low lying areas at RAMCDS and PRC Line for Re. 0.46 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. As already explained in previous para the
measurements were to be taken jointly by the authorised representative of both parties as per
clause 52 of GCC of contract. In finalization of deviation orders the cooperation and
coordination by the claimant was not forthcoming as required under clause 52 of GCC of
contract (page 106 of CD-2). The delay was not attributable to respondent Refer letter dated
02-11-2018 (page 2262 of CD-39) and letter dated 19-04-2018 (page 2264 of CD-39). Page
2204 of CD-39 is not signed and is denied. In any case the respondent has accounted for all
the work done by the claimant and no additional payment is due to the claimant. The claim is
not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

(xxi) Provision of coloured ceramic glazed tiles in lieu of plain/ white ceramic tiles in OR, JCO
and officer block for Re. 2.42 Crores.

Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the provision of coloured
ceramic glazed tiles in ORS, JCO and Officer Block is beyond the scope of the agreement.
No payment is pending in this regard. Respondent promptly denied the claim of claimant
dated 26-12-2018 vide its letter dated 08-01-2019 (page 2365 of CD-40). The claim of the
claimant was an afterthought because vide letter dated 13-11-2010 the ceramic/ verified tiles
samples were approved by respondent (R---). Vide letter dated 16-12- 2010 (page 2327 of
CD-40) samples of various tiles were approved as per appendix at S. No. 3 to 8 (page 2328 of
CD-40). Further Johnson Tiles were approved vide letter dated 09-02-2011 (R-) as per S.no. 5
of appendix. Vide letter dated 06-05-2014 (R---). Tiles were approved. The tiles approved
were as per the terms of contract as well as drawings. Drawing No. 28, 42 and 59 show use of
off while colour tiles. Clause no. 11.5.1, 11.5.8 and 11.5.9 on page 199 and 201 of CD-2
empowers the respondent about the colour approval. Hence the samples submitted by
claimant were approved in terms of contract as per the samples submitted by the claimant
himself. Hence the question of additional claim did not arise as the claimant accepted the
decision and continued to work without any additional claim. The demand for revised rates
dated 26-12-2018 was an afterthought and contrary to accepted terms. Respondent, therefore,
further clarified vide its letter dated 06-02-2019 (page 2368 of CD-40). The respondent's
letter dated 16-03-2019 (page 2375 of CD-40) also clarifies its consistent stand in this regard.
Respondent also communicated the decision of accepting officer to claimant vide its letter
dated 07-05-2019 (page 2382 of CD-40) and letter dated 11-05-2019 (page 2371 of CD-40)
that the deviation order was not admissible. The decision of respondent was final and
binding. The accepting officer decision was also communicated to claimant vide letter dated
13-02-2020 (page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21 at para 12). Hence the claim is untenable and is
liable to be dismissed.

5.2 Averments made in the para are denied. Respondent repeated by denied the unjustified claims.
5.3 Hence the claim of the claimant is liable to be rejected.

Claim No. 6: Of withheld material, plant and machinery and shuttering material for Rs. 17.89 Crores.

The claimant's claim for Rs. 17.89 Crores is denied, stating that the claimant failed to execute the work in
good faith and committed flagrant violations of the contract terms. The claimant took overpayment of
around Rs. 13 Crores and suffered huge losses due to the acts of omission and commission. The claimant
had no proper plan or material procurement schedules, and the contract was sub-let without proper
approval. The claimant also failed to show desired progress at the site, as it failed to procure sufficient
material, tools, plants, machinery, and equipment. The respondent had to mitigate its losses even as no
progress could be made by the claimant.

The claimant's claim is based on CD-41 & CD-42 but lacks supporting documents, such as ownership
proof, hire purchase agreements, and cash vouchers etc. The respondent has taken up the assessment of
stores and given due credit when finalizing the accounts. The claim is not justified due to the
overpayment received by the claimant and the obligation to complete the balance work at its risk and cost,
as well as the huge losses suffered by the respondent. The claimant was repeatedly requested to detail its
authorised representative for joint measurement, but no action was taken. The claim is therefore untenable
and liable to be dismissed.

Claim No. 7: The claimant seeks reimbursement for price escalation for cement and steel for Rs. 4.82
Crores. The claimant is entitled to adjustment in prices based on base years 1993-94. The respondent uses
the formula as per CA but with the base year 2003-04 index. There is no linking factor between 1993-94
and 2004-05, and the price indices for relevant items for SO/S1 and CO/C1 are available in 2004-05. The
claimant's calculation of escalation using two different series is unreasonable, as the date is available from
a single series only. The contract's spirit is important, and payment of escalation has been consistently
made for all contracts. The freezing of price index for cement and steel on completion date is strictly in
accordance with the contract's express term. Due escalation payment for the extended period under clause
13 has been duly paid, and the claim is not tenable and liable to be dismissed.

Claim No. 8: The claimant claims an overrun of Rs. 134,01,82,995.14 and denies mobilizing all required
resources with right earnest. The claimant failed to complete the work within the stipulated contract
period and failed to deploy sufficient resources. Technical deficiencies, mismanagement, and breach of
contract terms were found. The claimant's resources remained idle and under-utilized during the contract
period and beyond.

8.2 The contract prohibits compensation claims for delay attributed to the claimant or respondent, and the
claimant cannot seek extension of execution time. Clause 13 (B) of the contract prevents such claims.
(page 91 of CD-2).

8.2.1 Money spent by the claimant towards bank charges guarantee being Rs. 60,82,490/-

8.2.1.1 & 8.2.1.2 No Comments.

8.2.1.3 & 8.2.1.4 The defect liability period as per clause 40 (page 100 of CD-2) is 24 calendar months
after the works handed over to the respondent.

8.2.1.5 The Para is denied, stating that the respondent failed to fulfill its obligation and breached the
claimant's obligations. The respondent granted 14 extensions despite the claimant's inability to employ
sufficient resources. The respondent's letter dated 13-02-2020 (Para 36) on Page 1500 to 1509 of CD-21
provides details of these extensions.

(Table)

8.2.1.6 The claimant's prayer for a claim of Rs 60,82490/- against bank charges and commissions claimed
to be paid to the bank for extending bank guarantee is uncalled for and is baseless and contrary to the
terms of contract. Except for a bare assertion no evidence has been brought to the notice of Hon'ble
Tribunal to support its contention. The underlying Principle to terminate the contract was repudiatory
breach as contravention of stipulated situation by the claimant goes so much into the root of the contract
that it made further commercial performance of the contract impossible. The claimant just did not intend
to perform its part of obligation under the contract and its actions were inconsistent with the items of the
contract. The claimant abandoned the work and was disabled to perform. Such an act ultimately affected
the rights of respondent who was suffering huge losses. The contract had to be terminated by respondent
to mitigate its losses. Hence the respondent's motive to terminate the contract was neither wrong nor
unconscionable. Even otherwise the claim is not supported with any documents such as the actual margin
money and or bank charges. Page 2580 of CD-44 is tabulation prepared by the claimant and is not even
certified by a qualified accountant/ chartered accountant. Moreover, in view of the bar contained in clause
of 4 of special condition of contract (page 139 & 140 of CD-2), Note 9 of Schedule A on Page 17 of CD-
2 (Contract) and clauses 13(A) & (B) of GCC on Page 91 of CD-2 (contract) the claim is liable to be
rejected. Note 9 of Schedule A bars any claim by reason of any misunderstanding or any inaccuracy with
regard to site conditions. Clause 13(A) of GCC provided for extension of time for completion of work for
reasons beyond the control of claimant or any delays on the Part of respondent or the claimant and clause
13 (B) of GCC provides that No claim of compensation or otherwise howsoever arising as a result of
extensions granted shall be admitted. Claimant submitted affidavits prior to applying for extension of time
that they would not claim any compensation if the extension is granted in terms of condition 13 (A) of
GCC of Contract. These affidavits are part of RD- 12 (Page 1162 to 1207). Hence is view of specific bar
in the contract the claim is liable to be rejected.

The claimant's claim of Rs.60,82,490/- against bank charges and commissions for extending bank
guarantee is baseless and contrary to the terms of the contract. The underlying principle to terminate the
contract was repudiatory breach, as the claimant did not intend to perform its part of the obligation and its
actions were inconsistent with the items of the contract. The claimant abandoned the work and was
disabled, affecting the rights of the respondent, who suffered huge losses. The respondent's motive to
terminate the contract was neither wrong nor unconscionable. The claim is not supported by any
documents, and the claim is liable to be rejected due to the bar contained in clauses 4 of the special
condition of the contract, Note 9 of Schedule A, and clauses 13(A) and (B) of the GCC. The claimant
submitted affidavits stating they would not claim compensation if the extension is granted in terms of
condition 13(A) of the GCC of Contract, which is part of RD-12 (Page 1162 to 1207). .

8.2.2 Expenditure on security watch of material after 25th April 2012 till 15 Sep 2020 for Rs.
210,19,402/-

8.2.2.1 Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that any watch & ward cost is
payable to claimant during the extended period. The claim is contrary to the terms of the contract. In view
of the specific bar in the contract no compensation can be claimed for working beyond stipulated period
of contract. Except for making bare averments no proof has been produced by the claimant to substantiate
the averments. The claimant has relied on same calculation at page 2581 of CD-44 without even annexing
any proof of deployment of security guards and making actual payments to them. The claim is an
afterthought. The contract did not grant any right to the claimant to claim expenditure on security watch
of materials after the stipulated date of completion. The claimant could have put an end to contract if it so
desired, at the end of contractual period. The claimant had the option to discontinue the work. However, it
requested for extension of time and accepted the extension without any financial effect. No new terms
were agreed between the parties. While requesting extension of time, the claimant has submitted
affidavits that no claim in respect of compensation or otherwise however arising as a result of extension
granted under condition 13(A) of contract agreement shall be claimed by the claimant. These affidavits
are part of RD-12 (Page 1162 to 1207). The claimant is, therefore, precluded subsequently from
demanding or raising a claim for security watch. Hence the claim is liable to be dismissed.

8.2.3 Fixed operational charges to run the project from 25-04-2012 to 15-09-2020.

8.2.3.1 Averments made in the para are denied. The claimant has not placed on record any copies of lease
agreement/ rent agreement for land, staff accommodation, godown etc. as claimed and no proof of actual
payments made by it. The claim is contrary to the terms of contract. The claimant has referred a claim of
Rs. 15.83 Crores on the basis of some data from page 2582 to 2613 of CD-43. The claim is an
afterthought and without any supporting documents. The detail submitted are not checked and/ or
signed/verified by any qualified accountant/ chartered accountant. The claim is apparently frivolous as an
illustration of payment of rent for accommodation at various times reveals as follows:-

RENT FOR ACCOMODATION CLAIMED (TABLE)

The sudden increase and decrease of the expenses on rent is not explained. In fact, the claimant has not
placed on record the details with nay documentary evidence. Proof and evidence is amiss. The party who
suffers has to prove:-

(a) Contract was breached.

(b) What damages it suffered.

(c) Extent of loss that was caused by breach.

(d) Must establish that he suffered actual loss.

(e) Aggrieved party must lead evidence. In every case where damages are claimed for breach of contract,
proof of loss is a condition precedent. The injured party is barred from claiming any part of damages
arising out of his neglect. Moreover, in view of the bar contained in different clauses of contract, as
already explained herein above and specific affidavit before applying for extension of time, the claim is
liable to be rejected.

8.2.4 Expenditure on deployment of plant and machinery after 25/4/2012 to15/9/2020.

8.2.4.1 Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the respondent committed
any breaches of contract. The claimant has preferred a claim of Rs. 53.35 Crores on the basis of some
details at page 2614 to 2644 of CD-44. However, their details are not legible and the respondent is not
able to respond. These details are not supported with any documents of purchase/ ownership and/ or cash
vouchers/challasns on allows etc. As per clause 15 on page 91 of CD-2 (Contract) the claimant was
required to ensure supply of tools, plants and equipment at site of work as required for execution of work.
However, the claimant failed to deploy sufficient of quantity of tools and plants and other equipment as it
did not have the requisite wherewithal to execute the work. This was the breach committed by the
claimant which goes to the root of the matter. The injured party is barred form claiming any
compensation due to own neglect. Moreover, in view of the specific bar contained in different clauses of
the contract, as already explained herein above and specific affidavits before applying for extension of
time, the claim is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed. 8.2.6 Expenditure on deployment of staff
salary and fixed labour after 25/4/2012 to 15/09/2020. 8.2.5.1 Averments made in the para are denied. It
is specifically denied that the respondent committed any breaches of contract. It is also specifically denied
that any expenses in this regard are to be reimbursed by respondent 8.2.5.2 Averments made in the para
are denied. The claimant could not deploy supervisory staff as per clause 22 on page 94 of CD-2 as well
as special condition no. 22 on page 153 of CD-2 (contracts). The staff deployed was technically deficient
and could not perform the requisite functions of supervision and monitoring effectively. The insufficient
& incompetent supervisory staff of claimant was responsible for catastrophic mismanagement at site and
sub-standard quality of work. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 34.04 Crores in this regard based on
details at page 2645 to 2648 of CD-44. However, the details are not supported with any supporting
documents such as employment letter, accepting of offer letter, pay rolls, cash vouchers, form 16s etc. in
support of actual deployment and payment. It is also not clean from the details whether they are inclusive
of labour deployment However, no copies of muster roll, wages books, wage slips, cash vouchers,
payment proof etc. have been submitted by the claimant. These documents were to be maintained at site
as per labour regulations given at page 114 of CD-2 (contracts). The complaints of non- payment of
wages to labour by claimant were received by respondent as a principle employer and the matter are
under investigation by labour officers. The flagrant violations of the contract terms by claimant made the
life woeful for the labour in general The claimant had also breached the contract condition 18 (page 92 of
CD-2) of GCC of contract by subletting the work to labour contractors. No approval of sub-letting was
ever sought by the claimant and/ or approved by the respondent. Even otherwise the deployment of labour
through sub-contractors is against the spirit of Labour Contract Act. Moreover, in view of specific bar
contained in different clauses of the contract, as already explained herein above and specific affidavits
before applying extension of time, the claim is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

8.2.7 Hire charges for shuttering material for Rs. 12.42 Crores.

8.2.7.1 Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that any breaches of contract were
committed by the claimant. Claimant is apparently not sure whether it owned the shuttering material or it
was obtained through hire agreement(s). The claim is based on details at page 2650 to 2658 of CD-44.
These details are not certified by any qualified accountant and/ or chartered accountant. No supporting
documents such as ownership documents, purchase orders, cash vouchers, hire agreements, proof of
payment, etc is annexed by the claimant. The claim is apparently for shuttering material only but claim of
scaffolding is also made in the details. The basis of rate adopted per day is also not explained by the
claimant. Interestingly the quality of shuttering plates use from 5500 Nos in year 2012 has increased to
7500 Nos in year 2013 to 9500 number in year 2014 to 18768 Nos in years 2015 to 2019 even as much of
dwelling units work had been completed. The claim is frivolous even as it is barred by the different
clauses of the contract as already explained herein above and specific affidavits before applying extension
of time, the claim is, therefore, not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

8.2.8 Compensation for loss of opportunity for Rs. 14.43 Crores. 8.7.8.1 Averments made in the para are
denied. It is specifically denied that the claimant had deployed and mobilized all desired resources
required. It is also specifically denied that anticipated profit of claimant would be 10% of work. The
termination of the contract was not the causation or dominant cause for loss of anticipated profits. There
is absolutely no material to demonstrate any real or substantial chance for earning profit by the claimant.
Profit projection made is mere speculative assumption and cannot be a yardstick to claim loss of
anticipated profits. The termination of contract was the result of the fundamental breaches committed by
the claimant and also had a composition of various factors like financial crunch of the claimant, lack of
adequate resources deployment at site of work by it The claim of loss of profit is, therefore, remote as
there was not even speculative chance for making profit by the claimant. The claimant has failed to abide
by its obligations under contract and lacked adequate infrastructure, finances and manpower to run its
business. It also failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate its losses. The claim is based on details at page
2659 of CD-44. While the claim speaks of anticipated profit @10% however, the calculation is based on
15% while ignoring the element of overheads. Moreover, the basis of adopting 10% or 15% profit is not
explained by the claimant. The claim is barred by the different clauses of the contract as already
explained herein above and specific affidavits before applying extension of time the claim is, therefore,
not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

8.3 CD-44 is denied. The calculations are not supported with any supporting documents.

Claim No. 9: Towards reimbursement of legal/ a arbitration and administrative cost to be incurred
by the claimant.

9.1 Averments made in the para are denied.

9.2 The claimant has committed fundamental breaches of the contract, but still claims frivolousness.
Legal, arbitration, and administrative fees are to be paid by the claimant, without reimbursement from the
respondent.

9.3 Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the claimant is entitled to be
compensated in respect of costs of the Present Proceedings.

9.4 Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the claimant is entitled under the
Agreement and law for award of cost and expenses incurred in the proceedings.

9.5 In view of the frivolous nature of claims the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

Claim No 10: Towards Interest @18 % on claim No 1 to claim No 9.

10.1 The para is denied, stating that the respondent cannot encash all bank guarantees and that
termination was illegal. The claimant resisted encashment, and interest on claim 3A is denied from the
termination contract date. The encashment of bank guarantees can be done after the tribunal's order dated
02-12-2021, as explained in para 18A.

10.2 The claimant's exorbitant interest rate of 18% is denied, as it is not justified by the fluctuating term
deposit rates. The power to award interest must be exercised reasonably considering the prevailing rate of
interest during the period being considered.

10.3 46 Cause of Action: Averments made in the para are denied. It is specifically denied that the
Respondent has committed several and various defaults and breaches of its obligations under the said
agreement. It is also specifically denied that the Respondent has failed and neglected to Perform its Part
of the said contract. The claims and demands of the claimant are frivolous and as such the claimant is not
entitled to receive and recover from respondent any compensation, damages in mandatory terms together
with interest thereon. It is specifically denied that Respondent has committed any unlawful acts and
omissions. On the over hand the claimant was found lacking wherewithal to execute the work. The
claimant committed fundamental breaches of the contract and even disabled itself to perform in a
reasonable manner as it abandoned the site. Hence the claims of the claimant are unjustified.

47. to 49. The Hon'ble Tribunal also has the jurisdiction to entertain, here decide and adjudicate the
claims, disputes and differences raised and made by the respondent and pass orders, directions, interim
awards, interim reasons of protection and its final award therein.