STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. G HARISCHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State of Karnataka through the Executive Engineer, UKP Dam, Division No. 2, Alamatti Dam, is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 20-10-1989 passed in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 1988 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur.

(2.) THE matter arises this way:Respondent-1 is a Class-I contractor executing the civil work under the appellant and in the course of executing the work, he had entered into a local competitive bidding contract with the appellant on 12-11-1982 in No. 13 in respect of work of construction of Alamatti Power Dam at Alamatti, Bijapur District. By virtue of Clause-53 of the said contract, the disputes between the parties arising out of the said contract are to be referred to the Arbitrator and the parties are to abide by the decision of the Arbitrator Certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to Sri A. Sel- varaj, Chief Engineer, Government of Karnataka, as a sole Arbitrator. THEreafter, the Arbitrator issued notices to the parties. THE respondent presented an application claiming certain sum of money payable by the appellant for the work done under the contract. THE appellant filed his counter. Both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. THE Arbitrator having heard the parties on both sides on various dates from 21-11-1987 to 24-1-1988 finally, passed an award and accordingly he informed the parties by a registered post on 24-1-1988. Later the respondent requested the Arbitrator on 9-2-1988 to file the award before the Court for making it rule of the Court and also to take action under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to pass a decree thereon with future interest at 19% per annum from the date of decree till payment. THE Court having issued notices to both parties and the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator appeared through Sri C.K. Dharwadkar, counsel and both the parties represented their respective cases. THE appellant filed objections to the award taking several contentions.

(3.) AFTER discussing in detail the material evidence produced, the arguments advanced and the reasons furnished by the Arbitrator, the learned Civil Judge held that the conclusions reached by the Arbitrator in all the points are sustainable. Accordingly, agreeing with the conclusions reached by the Arbitrator, the petition filed by the Arbitrator came to be allowed and a decree was directed to be drawn in terms of the award passed by the Arbitrator.