STATE OF KERALA Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is in challenge of a judgment pronounced in terms of the award passed by an Arbitrator. Disputes arose between the respondent and The Government of Kerala in respect of a contract work entrusted to the respondent, as per agreement dated 25-10-79, for construction of a Hostel Building for " Government School for the Blind, Deaf and Dumb" at Trivandrum . Reference was made to the Arbitrator at the intervention of the court. The Arbitrator in the award held that there was delay in handing over site for construction, that the superintending Engineer (Building and Local Works) committed default in supplying materials within stipulated time and that the respondent is entitled to some increase for the work done during extra contractual period. The arbitrator directed The State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs. 5,92,000/- besides refund of the deposit of Rs. 35,300/- with interest accrued thereon in settlement of all liabilities of either party in regard to the work.

(2.) THE award is attacked on the grounds, inter alia, that it is vague and unexecutable, and that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by traversing beyond the confines of the contract. In the original agreement, it was stipulated that the work should be completed on 7-10-81, but the time limit was subsequently extended up to 30-9-82 and was again extended up to 10-11-83 by mutual agreement. As the work was not completed even after the extended period, the contract was terminated on 6-11-85. Claims were thereafter raised by the respondent which were repudiated. On application, those disputes were referred to arbitration as aforesaid.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no term in the contract either express or implied preventing the respondent from claiming increased rates consequent to the increase in prices or due to inflation, and the clauses referred to by the learned Government Pleader must be confined to the specific situation mentioned in those clauses alone. eg.- In Clause (10) of the Notice inviting tenders, the restriction that Government will not pay any extra charges is confined to those matters where the contractor would have misjudged materials because a duty is case on every tenderer in the said clause to inspect the site of the proposed work including the quarries to satisfy himself about the quality and availability of materials. Similarly, he argued that the relevant clause in the supplemental agreement containing restrictions against claim for enhanced rate of compensation are confined to extra items not covered by the original agreement. According to the learned counsel, the restriction contained in clause (3) of the Special conditions is evidently with respect to the work done in the site.