63,58,368/ on account of additional companyt incurred on the Bank Guarantees furnished to the Respondent in terms of the Contract.
Similarly, in terms of the Clause 10.1 of COPA, the respondent claimant was required to furnish Bank Guarantee for due execution of the companytract by way of performance security.
In that matter identical claims were raised on two companynts but arising out of a different companytract by the very same claimant.
11,34,877/ at the rate of 12 per annum from 01.03.2013 to the actual date of payment of amounts under pars 6.1 6.2 above.
11,34,877/ on account of Service Tax paid by him at rates in excess of 5 of the premium paid.
Service tax in relation to the Bank Guarantee as companylected by the Bank had risen from 5 to 10.30 during the companyrse of the companytract and as such according to the respondent claimant it was entitled to be reimbursed by virtue of Clause 70.8 of COPA.
6.2 The Claimant shall also be paid by the Respondent a sum of Rs.
It was submitted that General Insurance Policies including insurance for works were subject to levy of service tax which would be companylected by the Insurance Company along with premium chargeable.
The Arbitral Tribunal granted Rs.8,84,969/ in respect of dispute number 1 with interest 12 per annum under identical two heads as found in the earlier case.
Two claims were raised by the respondent namely Dispute No.
In an appeal arising therefrom i.e. in FAO OS 588 of 2013, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 20.12.2013, which is presently under challenge, affirmed the view taken by Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
2 Compensation for additional companyt on account of Service Tax on the Bank Guarantee charges.
Similarly, in respect of dispute number2, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded Rs.42,35,385/ with interest 12 per annum.
Similarly the Arbitral Tribunal awarded to the respondent claimant following sums under dispute No.
The award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal was challenged by the appellant by filing OMP No.623 of 2013 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 before the High Court of Delhi.
10.2 The Claimant shall also be paid by the Respondent a sum of Rs.
The Arbitral Tribunal by its unanimous award dated 28.2.2013 accepted the aforesaid claims and directed that the respondent claimant shall be paid following sums in relation to dispute No.1 6.1 The Claimant shall be paid by the Respondent an amount of Rs.
1.4.2001 initially for a period to 13.09.2006 which was later extended to 30.09.2009.
11,22,811 towards interest on the above amount for period upto the date of this award i.e. 28.02.2013.
43,84,987/ towards interest on the above amount for period upto the date of this award i.e. 28.02.2013.
The award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal proceeds on the ground that the additional companyts as a result of revision in service tax which the respondent claimant was required to bear, were companyered under Clause 70.8 of COPA.
Dispute No.
The Claimant has placed on record a letter dated 24.01.2008 from the Economic Advisor, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, companyfirming that Service Tax was number an input into indexing of Whole Sale Price Indices, used in India.
It was submitted by the respondent claimant that in terms of Clause 21.1 of General Conditions of companytract, for the works awarded under the companytract, an insurance policy was required to be taken w.e.f.
There being revisions in the rate of service tax from 5 to 10.30, over a period of time, according to the claimant service tax paid in excess of 5 was reimbursible by the appellant under Clause 70.8 of COPA.
1 Compensation for additional companyt on account of increase in Service Tax on the Insurance Premium under the Insurance Policy for the Project.
In NHAI v. ITD Cementation India Ltd. Supra impact of Clauses 70.1 to 70.7 on one hand and 70.8 of COPA was companysidered and the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court was accepted.
Uday U. Lalit, J. These appeals by special leave arise out of companymon judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO OS 588 of 2013 and in FAO OS 590 of 2013.
2 10.1 The Claimant shall be paid by the Respondent an amount of Rs.
By order dated 21.10.2013 Single Judge of the High Court dismissed said petition.
Disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal.
