Cross-Examination of PW1 (Harish Mathur)

I. Establishing Personal Relationship and Potential Bias

Is it correct to state that you hold a position of responsibility in the claimant

company?

Is it correct to state that you have been associated with the claimant com-
pany for several years?

Is it correct to state that you share both a professional and personal relation-
ship with the director of the claimant company?

Is it correct to state that the financial outcome of this arbitration directly im-
pacts the claimant company?

Is it correct to state that as a senior officer, your professional standing is also

affected by this arbitration?

II. Introducing the Letter of Acknowledgment

This document dated 24-01-2022 is shown to you. Is it correct to state that

you recognize this document?

Is it correct to state that this document bears the signature of the claimant’s
authorized representative?
Is it correct to state that this letter acknowledges that the claimant has read
and understood all tender documents?

Is it correct to state that the letter confirms the claimant has conducted all
necessary surveys and investigations before bidding?

Is it correct to state that the claimant was fully aware of the project condi-
tions before submitting the bid?

Is it correct to state that despite this acknowledgment, the claimant now al-
leges that critical project details were not disclosed?

III. Understanding the Disclaimer in the Tender Documents

Is it correct to state that you were part of the team reviewing the tender doc-
uments before submission?

Is it correct to state that the Feasibility Report/Detailed Project Report (DPR)

was provided only for reference? - not provided

Is it correct to state that the tender documents explicitly instructed bidders

to conduct independent surveys? - to the extent of execution of
claimant’s work

Is it correct to state that the DPR was not binding on the respondent? - can-
not comment since DPR was not there
Is it correct to state that the Request for Proposal (RFP) stated that the re-
spondent would not be liable for any project delays due to DPR inaccuracies?
- cannot comment since DPR was not there

IV. Technical Schedule and Non-Accountability Clause in the RFP

Is it correct to state that the Technical Schedule in the DPR mentioned that
certain project permissions were pending? - needs to be checked (techni-
cal schedule)

Is it correct to state that the RFP required bidders to verify all project-related
permissions independently? - NO; it is the work of the respondent

Is it correct to state that the claimant did not raise any formal concerns re-
garding missing permissions before submitting the bid? - did not consider
it necessary in view of the assuring clauses of the Agreement

Is it correct to state that the RFP explicitly stated that the respondent would
not be liable for errors in the DPR? - cannot comment since DPR was not
there

Is it correct to state that the claimant was aware that the respondent was not
responsible for ensuring project permissions were in place before the bid? -
cannot comment since DPR was not there

V. Linking the Letter of Acknowledgment to Due Diligence Failure

Is it correct to state that the claimant submitted a Letter of Acknowledgment
dated 24-01-2022? - yes; part of formal submission with tender - pro-
cedural requirement

Is it correct to state that the letter confirms that the claimant accepted all
tender documents, including disclaimers? - yes, including the reassuring
clauses

Is it correct to state that the letter affirms the claimant conducted an inde-
pendent survey? - yes to the extent of claimant work

Is it correct to state that the claimant has not produced a copy of this inde-
pendent survey? - no formal proof/record; procedural thing

Is it correct to state that in the absence of such a survey, the claimant’s

claim of being unaware of project challenges is unsupported? - already con-
ducted survey

Is it correct to state that by submitting the acknowledgment, the claimant

voluntarily accepted all project-related risks? - yes in view of provision of
CA

VI. Contractual Awareness of Right of Way & Termination

Is it correct to state that the claimant submitted its tender bid on

26.01.2022, confirming it had studied the bid documents and surveyed the
project? - yes

Is it correct to state that the claimant was aware that the respondent was not
in possession of the project stretch at the time of bidding? - no; even Re-
spondent was not aware (refer PWD Goa and Karnataka forest clear-
ance letter)

Is it correct to state that the contract signed on 25.04.2022 included Annex-

ure II of Schedule A, specifying that the right of way would be provided on
the "appointed date”? - yes; the clause referenced 30 days Clause
3.1(3)(a)

Is it correct to state that this meant the claimant knew the right of way would
not be available from day one of the contract?- No; Respondent’s respon-
sibility to have all the permissions

Is it correct to state that the contract was deemed terminated on

25.07.2022? - No; there were multiple communications after that; no
formal termination by the Respondent

Is it correct to state that after this date, any activity undertaken by the
claimant was at its own risk?

Respondent were aware of the financial contributions being done by

the Claimant

No contention to stop the work from Respondent

VII. Compliance with Restitutionary Obligations

Is it correct to state that the respondent sent emails dated 03.04.2023,

27.07.2023, and 04.09.2023 requesting the claimant’s bank details for a 1%
restitutionary payment? - Yes

Is it correct to state that the claimant has not provided the requested bank
details to date? It was already with the Respondent
Is it correct to state that despite believing it was entitled to greater compen-
sation, the claimant refused to accept the 1% restitutionary payment? - yes;
since the contract was terminated at Respondent’s wish

Is it correct to state that the Performance Guarantee was returned to the

claimant on 26.02.2024, marking the formal closure of contractual obliga-
tions? - - yes; termination by the Respondent

VIII. Reliance on Correspondence & Site Availability

A letter bearing reference No. NHAI/PIU–DWD/20022/NH748AA–handover/408

dated 07.05.2022 is shown to you. Is it correct to state that you recognize
this letter? Yes

Is it correct to state that this letter did not contain a definitive assurance re-
garding site availability? Assume since the copy has been shared with
Claimant

Is it correct to state that the respondent never issued written instructions to

the claimant to make additional investments based on this letter? - signing
of the CA presumes working the sire; work has to mobilized as soon
as possible in construction projects; NHAI never stopped Claimant
from mobilizing; recognized the mobilization by way of letters to
dept.

A letter bearing reference No. NHAI/PIU–DWD/20022/NH748AA/667 dated

30.05.2022 is shown to you. Is it correct to state that you recognize this let-
ter? - yes
Is it correct to state that this letter did not guarantee site availability by a
specific date? - only related to design consultant; did not mention
that site shall no be available

Is it correct to state that neither this letter nor the respondent provided a
binding assurance regarding site availability? - no contrary contention
was also shown; RO letter reference

IX. Performance Guarantee & Assumption of Risk

Is it correct to state that the claimant was contractually obligated to submit a

Performance Guarantee?

Is it correct to state that the return of this guarantee in February 2024 con-
firms that the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the termination
clause?

Is it correct to state that the claimant had acknowledged in writing the risks
mentioned in the tender documents?

Is it correct to state that despite these disclaimers, the claimant did not con-
duct an independent survey?

Is it correct to state that given these facts, the losses claimed by the
claimant were self-inflicted?

LOA is standard format given by NHAI and cannot be altered by the

Claimant or any bidder otherwise would be disqualified.
Claimant not aware that site was not available with the NHAI;
nowhere mentioned in CA

Clauses are present to account for any inconveniences in work