Home | MyGov

Accessibility
Accessibility Tools
Color Adjustment
Text Size
Navigation Adjustment
Screen Reader iconScreen Reader

Seeking public comments on preliminary draft of Public Contracts (Resolution of Disputes) Bill, 2015

Seeking public comments on preliminary draft of Public Contracts (Resolution of Disputes) Bill, 2015
Start Date :
Jun 16, 2015
Last Date :
Jun 30, 2015
17:00 PM IST (GMT +5.30 Hrs)
Submission Closed

The Finance Minister in his budget speech for the Union Budget 2015-16 interalia stressed the need to streamline the institutional arrangements for resolution of disputes relating ...

The Finance Minister in his budget speech for the Union Budget 2015-16 interalia stressed the need to streamline the institutional arrangements for resolution of disputes relating to public contracts and proposed to introduce Public Contracts (Resolution of Disputes) Bill. The relevant excerpt from his budget speech is as follows:

"73. On the other hand, disputes arising in public contracts take long to resolve, and the process is very costly too. My Government proposes to introduce Public Contracts (Resolution of Disputes) Bill, to streamline the institutional arrangements for resolution of such disputes."

2. Accordingly, a preliminary first draft of Public Contracts (Resolution of Disputes) Bill, 2015 has been prepared. The proposed legislation is envisaged to deal with the contracts entered into by Public Authority for construction projects and infrastructure projects including PPP projects.

3. The draft bill is attached for obtaining comments/views of stakeholders.

Last date/time to share your views is 30th June, 2015 by 5.00 PM.

Showing 92 Submission(s)
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

CFI: 10 Section 22 What would happen to the proceedings that continue, after filing of the application and before admission.

11 Section 24 Incomplete, therefore can’t comment

SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

9Section 21 The limitation of 3 years should be retained, otherwise it will create complications. (Parties will have to file application seeking condonation of delay. Further, in view sub section 3 the power of condonation shall extend beyond period of three yrs if there is no time period prescribed for extension in subsection 3.) Disputes under the present Act should not apply to the ongoing arbitration as it may create additional burden of fees on the parties including that of this tribunal.

SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

CFI7 Section 19 Does not provide additional time for filing a counter claim, which should be there.It also gives power to the Tribunal to reject the claims (however, this cannot be without appreciating the evidence of the parties) 8 Section 20There should be a clear demarcation what type of disputes shall be retained (decided) by the Tribunal and what should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. After some time, there may be a possibility that the tribunal may be burdened with loads of work caus

SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

6Section 18 (4) There is no clarity in terms of fees schedule,akin to the one under ICC & like rules should be prescribed and appended with the Act under its Rules Under this section, the tribunal is to meet its own expenses towards functioning of it. This may increase the burden on the parties as, the fee for sections 9 and 11, 34, 37 etc (when ones approach High Court) and or other provisions are minimal, when one has to approach the HC.It also speaks 25% addition fee which increasecostdispute

SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

CFI Comments continued....
4 Additional Clause Section 17 (5) There should be an additional clause expressly excluding the Tribunal's powers to adjudicate or even entertain any dispute that has a criminal implication or consequences or which otherwise attracts the purview of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or which is governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5 Section 13 ( c) primafacie appears to be in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) as it restricts the right to practice

SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

CFI Comments continued....
2 Section 2 (5) The min. and max. no. of members should be defined, so as to any time have an ODD no. of Tribunal members for adjudication purposes

3 Section 6 (1) (c) Members should not be restricted to persons qualified to be a HC Judge, and should ideally be based on persons with other specialties/capabilities including technocrats, chartered accountants, medical professional etc.

SIDDHARTH SINGH_4
SIDDHARTH SINGH_4 10 years 2 weeks ago

Comments from Construction Federation of India (CFI) Member
1 Definition L: Definition of dispute is limited, and may be expanded to include any conflict or controversy related to any party's claim for assertion of rights, demands, or for performance of any obligations, or any claims or contentions ancillary to the definition of dispute so provided in the contract.

Jaychan
Jay Chan 10 years 2 weeks ago

The contracts are awarded such that the whole large project itself is awarded away to single contractor. This kind of practice delays the projects very much. As for projects are concerned, they should be divided in to independent packages awarded to many able contractors with good history of finishing projects in time.

Rajat Verma_2
Rajat Verma_2 10 years 2 weeks ago

In addition,as far as applicable the complete process from filing of Statemen of Claim to arguments etc shall be made online. This will not only expedite the work but also save the environment.

Rajat Verma_2
Rajat Verma_2 10 years 2 weeks ago

Dear Sir,
This is a welcome step. In the bill, a provision may please be made in cases when the Tribunal doesnt stick to the time limits prescribed. It is generally seen that the Tribunal so formed by government do not follow the strict time limit. There should be a clause through which the delays by the Tribunal are being penalized.

Thanks

tips | Keyboard