LAWS(KAR)-2009-4-35

K RAMAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 24, 2009
K RAMAKRISHNA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions are filed under Section 151, C. P. C. challenging the orders dated 4-1-2003 and 7-3-2003 passed on I. A. 4 and I. A. 2 respectively in case No. A. C. 1/02 on the file of the District Judge, mandya, praying to set aside the said orders and to dismiss I. As. 4 and 2 filed by respondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that he was a successful bidder for carrying out the work of laying water supply distribution system, construction of overhead tanks, laying of machines, supply of submersible and cerntifugal pipes on a turn-key basis. To that effect an agreement/contract was entered into between the petitioner and the State of karnataka on 7-4-1995 which provided for an arbitration clause in case of any dispute.

(3.) IT is his further case that he carried out the work sincerely and diligently and completed the entire work to the satisfaction of the State Government by May 1999 and that at the instance of the State Government he had carried out additional work far beyond the scope of the contract and he had spent nearly fifteen crores for completing the work, that the Government had not at all paid for the extra work carried out at its instance. Further, that the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)further security deposit and withheld amounts were not paid by the State Government after the completion of the work as such there is huge amount of money due by the Government to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent herein was appointed as an arbitrator who, after hearing both the parties and giving full opportunity to both sides, passed an award dated 29-11-2000, directing the Government/ respondent-1 herein, to pay a sum of rupees eight crores to the petitioner towards EMD, further security deposit, Withheld amounts, price adjustment and the cost of the work carried out, extra items, excess quantities etc. The arbitrator also directed the respondent-1 State government to pay interest on the said amount.