AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Garg, J.—There was a dispute between the Union of India and M/s. Shastri Construction Company, Chandigarh, who had constructed Administrative Block and other O.T.H. Accommodation etc. for the army authorities at Bhatinda. This dispute was referred to Col. A. K. Mullick, VSH of Civil Engineering Department. He made an award on 29-6-1987. The objections against this award were dismissed by Mrs. Rekha Rani Sub Judge I Class, Chandigarh on 2-12-1988 and an appeal against it was dismissed by Shri Babu Ram Gupta, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on 2-4-1990. Aggrieved against it the present revision has been attempted.
It has been alleged that the Arbitrator allowed 15 items of the respondent-contractor whereas he had given details only regarding 6 of them ; that an award of Rs. 2.70 lacs regarding the prolongation of the contract was unjustified and should not have been allowed ; that sum of Rs. 3.75 lacs under claim No. 2 has been allowed by the Arbitrator on account of the alleged increase in prices whereas such an increase is permissible only if it was a result of coming into force of any fresh law or statute.
A perusal of the record shows that the contractor claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of steep rise in price of building materials and transportation charges due to increase in price of diesel. The claim contains details of escalation of materials including variation in price of material and authentic price index published by the Economic Adviser to Government of India was relied upon and after considering the Charts (A) + (B) when the Arbitrator was satisfied that there was increase in the cost of material it was partially allowed to the extent of Rs. 3,75,000/- as given in the award. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not negative the claim No 2 given in detail by the Contractor and the decision arrived at by the Arbitrator in his award dated 29 6.1987.
The Contractor had put forward claim No. 3 pertaining to re-imbursement of damages suffered due to breach or in other words the delay for which the Union of India was responsible in as much as though the claimant wanted to complete the work within 15 months as stipulated in the contract yet on account of the delay caused by the Department the work in question could be concluded in a period of 22� months. This necessitated additional establishment in the form of extension which he had to arrange for the Engineer, Supervisor, Store-Keeper, Clerk, Accountant and two chowkidars etc, All these details were worked out in column No. 3 (a) (b) and (c) of claim No. 3 and the Arbitrator accepted that there was prolongation of the contract and for that the Union of India was responsible and the claim was partially sustained to the extent of Rs. 2,70,000/-. It may also be mentioned here that no arguments were addressed in respect of the other minor items though a general figure, say 15 items, were alleged to be in dispute. These were not specifically enumerated even in the grounds of revision. It was not a case of wrong statement of law or even procedure at any stage and there was no infringement of any clause of arbitration agreement and as observed in Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Veshno Rice Millers, , no interference is called for in the decision of the learned Additional District Judge who too rightly has rejected the objections put forward by the Union of India. There was no misconduct in not giving detailed reasons while deciding claims No. 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not find out or show as to where and at what occasion opportunity was not given to the Union of India to rebut the claim in respect of the items in question.
The actual date of completion of work was 30.9.1980 and the award in this case was made on 29.6.1987. As regards interest the learned counsel for the respondent-contractor has referred to Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others Vs. G.C. Roy, wherein it has been held that in every case where the arbitration agreement does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to award interest pendentelite such powers must be inferred and the award as such is maintained. The conclusion is that the present revision does not call for interference and the same is dismissed.