GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Vs. K SUDHAKARREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the order and decree of Civil Judge, Yadgir in Arbitration Case No. 10 of 1990 by which he made the award passed by the sole arbitrator Sri N.D. Deshpande, a rule of the court and pronounced Judgment according to the award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE appeal was listed for admission and as both the parties were ready, by consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the appeal was taken up for final disposal.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate advanced the following contentions: Clauses 31 and 32 of the tender agreement prohibited the arbitrator from awarding at any rate, in excess of the tendered rate and therefore, the award at the rate in excess of the tendered rate for the extra quantity of work turned out by the contractor over and above the tendered quantity is illegal and the same amounts to misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. THE 2nd contention advanced is that in respect of certain other items of work, the contractor by his letter dated 10-9-1986 had undertaken to carry out the work beyond the tendered period at a certain rate and that the items for which the arbitrator has awarded is much higher than the rate at which the contractor has agreed as per his letter dated 10-9-1986 and the item for which the arbitrator has so awarded is practically similar to the items carried out by the contractor as per his letter dated 10-9-1986 and therefore, the arbitrator could not have awarded any amount higher than the rate permissible for the items undertaken by the contractor as per his letter dated 10-9-1986. THE 3rd contention that was advanced was in respect of the items of work carried out beyond the stipulated date viz., 19-7-1986. THE arbitrator has awarded overhead charges taking into consideration the value of the entire quantity of work turned out by the contractor both during the period agreed upon and the items executed by him beyond the period and the overhead charges could have been given only taking into account the quantity of work turned out beyond the period. THE 4th contention urged was that the arbitrator awarded interest at 18% per annum and under any circumstances, there was absolutely no scope for the arbitrator to have awarded interest at that rate. THE last contention that was urged was in respect of the operative portion which relates to interest and it was urged that it has been so worded that it would amount to grant of interest on interest already granted.