EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CED III CCU AND THE CHIEF ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRUCTION UNIT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS Vs. KWALITY CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI V. NEELAKANTA RAO S/O. V. SESHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in A.C. No. 30/1997, allowing the petition filed under Section 14 r/w S.17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') and making the award dated 28.08.1997 drawn in case No. ARB/4 by the learned Arbitrator as Rule of the Court, with which the application filed by the Appellant under Section 30 & 33 of the Act was rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are: The Appellant No. 1 issued a notification, inviting tenders for construction of 44 Nos. Quarters for Institute of Wood Science and Technology at Bangalore. The Respondent submitted the tender, which was considered and accepted by the Appellant No. 1 and an agreement was entered into on 13.12.1989. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the date of commencement of the work was 22.12.1989, to be completed before 21.06.1991. The work having not been completed within the agreed period, extension of time having been sought by the Respondent was allowed and the time was extended up to 31.03.1992. Respondent completed the work by 12.09.1992. Appellant No. 1 issued an intimation to the Respondent on 25.03.1994 to submit final bill. The final bill was prepared and payment made on 31.03.1994. Respondent being aggrieved by the settlement, raised a dispute and requested Appellant No. 2 for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator, which was rejected on the ground that, the claims are time barred and an intimation to the said effect was sent on 09.01.1995. The request was renewed by the Respondent on 17.06.1995. Appellant No. 2 appointed an Arbitrator on 02.01.1997. Claim statement was filed by the Respondent before the Arbitrator and a counter statement was filed by the Appellants. Additional claims were also putforth. The Arbitrator framed issues on 31.05.1997 and as per the order dated 11.07.1997, held that the claims are not barred by limitation and disputes do exist, which are arbitrable.

(3.) SRI M. Madhvachar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, firstly contended that, the award having been passed beyond 4 months, there is bar of limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision reported at State of Punjab Vs. Hardyal, AIR 1985 SC 920 . Secondly, the claims put forth by the Respondent/contractor being beyond the agreement, the claim allowed is not justified. Thirdly, the award of interest is unjustified and reliance was placed on the decision reported at Nav Bharat Construction Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 258 . Learned Counsel submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court is not justified in passing the impugned judgment/order and hence interference in the matter is called for.