STATE OF M P Vs. SVEC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the instant Civil Revision the State/applicants have challenged the award dated 30-10-1999 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 60/91. Facts of the case in nutshell leading to the reference case are that the Construction Company had obtained three different contracts for remodelling and C.C. Lining of Mahanadi Main Canal at different points. In the instant case, the Porous concrete slabs were castes as an extra item of work in the slopes, after completion of PCC lining as per the designs, drawings and instructions of the engineers. For laying Porous concrete slabs, room was made in the completed lining by removing the already laid slabs. The area of these slabs, which were removed for casting Porous concrete slabs was deducted from the measurements of PCC lining in the final bill. According to the non-applicant, the bill raised towards this extra work, which was deducted by the State Govt. was not justified and the contractor therein was entitled to receive the payment for the same. After refusal by the State Govt. to release the payment for the said extra work both the parties decided to resolve the dispute by way of the remedy available under M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short "the Act of 1983"). The said dispute raised by the non-applicant was registered as three different cases by the Tribunal: first Reference Case No. 101/91 was pertaining to the remodelling and C.C. Lining of Mahanadi Main Canal from 24 to 27 km. Similarly, second Reference Case No. 60/91 was in respect of the remodelling and C.C. Lining of Mahanadi Main Canal from 28 to 32 km. Likewise the third Reference Case No. 61/91 was pertaining to remodelling and C.C. Lining of Mahanadi Main Canal from 44 to 49 km. The instant Revision deals with the Reg. Case No. 60/91 before the Adhiniyam. The non-applicant, thereafter, made a statement claiming for different items from the State Govt. by way of arbitration and ultimately after considering the non-applicant the State Govt. also refuted the claim of the non-applicant by filing a separate objection. Finally, after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner the Tribunal vide its impugned award dated 30th October, 1999 passed the order dealing with all the three reference cases. While deciding the matter, the Tribunal hold that the non-applicant would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 6,27,300 from the State. It is this impugned order dated 30th October, 1999, which has been assailed by the State/applicants by way of the instant Civil Revision invoking the Act of 1983.

(2.) The main grounds challenged by the State/applicants in the instant Civil Revision are that the Tribunal has not exercised his jurisdiction properly and has exercised the power illegally with the material irregularity. It was also challenged by the State that the Tribunal in fact has failed to see that there was no agreement between the applicant/State and non-applicant. Lastly, it was challenged that the claim raised by the contractor was barred by limitation and this issue has not been dealt with by the Tribunal.

(3.) Shri G.D. Vaswani, G.A. appearing on behalf of the State taking the Court through the award passed by the Tribunal tried to canvass before the Court that in fact the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the submissions raised by State in their defence before the Tribunal and has passed the award, which is either per se illegal or perverse in its finding.