Colombo Lotus Tower embroiled in a legal tussle with Micro Holdings
View(s):The construction of the US $ 104 million Colombo Lotus Tower at D.R. Wijewardana Mawatha continues amidst allegations of a breach of trust by the authorities in awarding a contract for the high speed elevators and escalators, the joint venture partner of a Japanese company entrusted with the task originally, claimed in a petition filed in the Colombo District Court.
In the petition, Micro Holdings, BOI approved joint venture partner of Fujitec Corporation of Japan stated that the contract was awarded to them originally to install high speed elevators and escalators in the Lotus Tower. The authorities are now trying to revoke the contract from Fujitec and offer it to another company whose offer was previously technically rejected as they do not comply with the technical specification and priced much higher, Micro Holdings, owners of the Micro Cars Ltd which produces the popular Micro brand of vehicles, alleged.
The bid made by Fujitec has been evaluated as technically fully compliant and lowest in price and was approved by very senior professors of the University of Moratuwa who are the technical consultants of the project. Further the technical sub committee too has endorsed and awarded the contract to Fujitec, the company said.
Micro Constructions representing Fujitec appealed to the District Court on May 14 citing the injustice and the court on May 15 issued enjoining orders against the 1st and 2nd defendants, CNEIEC the main contractor and Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC) preventing them from entering into a contract for the supply and installation of lifts and escalators in Lotus Tower Project and also from cancelling the contract already entered with Micro Constructions Pvt Ltd.
The enjoining orders have been further extended to the June 18 requesting CNEIEC and TRC submissions on June 4. In the meantime the CNEIEC and the TRC have filed applications for leave to appeal in the High Court of Civil Appeal on June 9 seeking to challenge the order of the District Court dated June 4, 2015. The court had directed them to support the same on June 10.
The Appeal Court further extended the enjoining to June17 at Civil Appeal Court.