ARB.P.--505/2019. Case: INFRA COOL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | ARB.P.--505/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 13, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13.8.2019 + ARB.P. 505/2019
INFRA COOL PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Dhamija, Adv.
versus
ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD ..... Respondent Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER (ORAL):
I.A. No.11045/2019
-
Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ARB.P. No.505/2019
-
This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition has been filed in the background of the following broad facts:
-
A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 25.6.2012 for supply, installation and commissioning of Cold Rooms, Ginger Line, Material Handling and Allied Equipments etc. for Ginger Centre at IID Center, Naltali in the District of Nagaon, Assam subject works”).
-
On 3.8.2012, the petitioner made an offer. The petitioner’s offer accepted. Accordingly, a work order was issued to the petitioner
7.12.2012. The total contract value was pegged at Rs.1,55,31,750/-. petitioner issued a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) on 17.12.2012. The however, was issued by the petitioner subject to certain terms and being accepted by the respondent.
4.1 In particular, the petitioner had indicated that the respondent release advance payment for execution of the subject works.
-
Thereafter, on 12.1.2013, the petitioner addressed a letter respondent to fix a date to discuss issues related to the mutual acceptance of the work order. In other words, the petitioner wanted the respondent accept the conditions contained in the LOA before a formal agreement could be signed.
5.1 As a result of this, the respondent vide its letter dated 24.1.2013 fixed a meeting for this purpose on 28.1.2013.
-
The petitioner claims that on 18.2.2013, it communicated respondent that it was ready and willing to enter into a formal agreement. In this communication, the petitioner also reiterated its earlier request release of advance payment before it commenced the work envisaged the aforementioned work order.
-
On 3.4.2013, the petitioner wrote to the respondent seeking a of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs.3,26,500/-. This request was reiterated by the petitioner vide letters dated 29.7.2013 and
-
On 16.6.2014, the petitioner wrote to the respondent that it had to know that the subject works had been farmed out to another entity.
-
Given this situation, the petitioner once again reiterated its for refund of the EMD. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial