2 July 2010,Friday Kapil Goel B.Com(H) FCA LLB Advocate Delhi ...

“Technopromexport”HELD• Thus, the decision in the case of Ishikawajma was distinguished bythe learned judges of Madras High Court. It is of course debatablewhether the points of distinctions made out are correct. But, the factsituation in the present case is quite different. Firstly, at the initialstage itself, the bids were invited by NTPC for three separate worksviz. offshore supply, onshore supply and onshore services. Threeseparate contracts were executed. There is no basis to think nor isthere any allegation that the contracts were split up at the instance ofthe applicant or that there was price imbalance. In any case, we findno distinguishing feature that makes the Ishikawajma caseinapplicable to the facts of the present case, as discussed earlier andthis Authority is bound by that decision (supplement by JusticeReddi)