METHA TEJA SINGH CO Vs. EXE ENGR CPWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award dated 26.4.1979 delivered by Sh.M.S.Teleng who had acted as arbitrator inter-se parties with respect, to their disputes and differences arising under agreement No 11/EE.C.IX of 1976-77 was partly remitted back by the court to him on 25.11.1980. It was observed that the present case was governed by clause 12-A of the terms and conditions of the agreement, and not clause 12(vi)as held by the arbitrator. Deviations in excess of 20% in individual items were held determinable in terms of clause 12-A. Clause 12(vi) on the other hand dealt with deviation of items of any individual trade upto 50% either side of the value of trade in the contract. THE Court, however, upheld the award in so far as the amount of Rs. 32.000.00 which had been disallowed.

(2.) NOW the learned arbitrator has again given his award dated 9.5.1983 after the said remission. Its perusal shows that the learned arbitrator has reiterated that his interpretation of the clauses 12-A and 12(vi) in the first award was correct, and that giving effect to the order of the court would render the provisions of clause 12(vi) of agreement otiose, After having observed all this, the arbitrator proceeded to consider, the case in the context of clause 12-A, and came to the view that as the contractor had not submitted his revised rates within 7 days of the receipt of the orders for additional or substituted items, he should be deemed to have executed them at the rates already submitted by him. On that score no payment was held due to the contractor.