Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs Mahabir Construction Company Ranchi

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Admittedly, an agreement was executed between Central Coalfields Limited and Mahabir Construction Company on 3.3.1984, relating to earth work and excavation and levelling for railway siding at Danea, for a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- or such other sum as may be arrived at under Clause 9 of the specification relating to payment by items measurements at unit passage. The contractor was already paid Rs. 1,17,640/- and according to Central Coalfields Limited, no balance amount was paid.

The contractor raised certain claims and disputes, which were referred to the sole arbitrator. Arbitrator gave un-reasoned award dated 10.4.1992 and directed Central Coalfields Limited to pay a sum of 1,93,064.36 paise with interest @ 18% per annum against claim No. 1 and interest @ 12.5% per annum from July, 1984 to January, 1987 against claim No. 2, as also a sum of Rs. 20,000/-against claim No. 3.

The said award was filed in court to be made rule of Court, to which M/s. Central Coalfields Limited filed objection u/s 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'' for short), inter-alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator did not take into consideration the fact that claims of the contractor were beyond the terms and conditions of contract/agreement and fit to be rejected. Its contention was that the contractor was not entitled to any payment for any additional work done, unless he had received an order in writing from the Executive Engineer for such additional work. He was also bound to submit his claim for any such additional work done during any one month on or before 15th of the following month. In the present case, there was neither any such order of the Executive Engineer in writing nor the contractor ever submitted his claim for any such additional work on or before 15th day of the following month.

In the impugned order dated 20.7.1993, the Special Subordinate Judge I considered the aforesaid objection, u/s 30 of the Act and found that the work in question was not estimated at the time of tender. Further, it was admitted position that the contractor had done the work more than the tender work on the basis of the agreement executed between the parties. The rate of work was already entered into the agreement. He claimed the amount on the basis of Measurement Book, as the additional works done by him were already measured by the employees of the Central Coalfields Limited and were duly entered in the Measurement Book.

It was not denied that the aforesaid additional works were not done by the contractor or those were not measured and duly entered in the Measurement Book by competent employees of the Company.

No doubt the award in question was an unreasoned award, but the court below found that the Arbitrator had considered the documents and evidence placed before him and then awarded the aforesaid amount to the contractor. He was, therefore, rightly awarded for the extra work done by him.

Mr. Suresh Prasad, counsel for the appellant, also challenged the grant of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount awarded in respect of the claim. It is well settled that Arbitrator was competent to award interest for the period commencing with the date of award to the date of decree or the date of realisation, which ever was earlier. In the circumstance, there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad.

In the result, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. This appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.