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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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