STATE OF KERALA Vs. K MANIKANTAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a contract between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant is the State and the respondent is the contractor. The contract was entered into on 19.04.1986. That contract stipulates certain rates for the extra items of work and the limit of extra items of work beyond which the contractor will be agreement on 31.8.1987 executed by the contractor agreeing that he would complete the work by 30.9.1987. When thus successively, the contractor had applied for extension of time and executed entitled to additional rates. As per the said agreement the work had to be completed by 27.11.1986. The site was handed over on 28.05.1986. The contractor could not complete the work in time. According to him, there was delay in supplying the materials and facilitating the work by the appellant/State. Whatever that be, the contractor had as of his own, made an application on 14.11.1996 requesting the Government to extend time for completion of the work till 31.3.1987 and the Government was benevolent enough to grant this extension and consequently, a supplementary agreement was executed by the contractor on 30.1.1987, undertaking that the work would be completed before 31.3.1987, the date suggested by the contractor himself in his request for extension of time. It is an admitted case before us that the contractor could not complete the work on or before 31.3.1987. Of course, the contractor has got his own allegations against the State that the State was instrumental for that. Whatever that be, the contractor had again on 20.3.1987, with both eyes open, made a request to the Government to extend the time beyond 31.3.1987 for three months until 30.06.1987. The contractor made such an application with the hope that he will be given that extension. The extension was granted and another supplementary agreement was entered into by the contractor, again, on 23.6.1987 with both the eyes open and agreeing to complete the work before 30.6.1987, the date suggested by him in his letter dated 20.3.1987. Same has been repeated once again. There was a further supplementary supplementary agreements agreeing for completion of the work within the extended time suggested by himself, whatever be the reason now attributed, the contractor cannot say that the State was responsible for the delay. Even then the contractor could not complete the work even by 30.9.1987. The State therefore terminated the contract. It was thereupon, the dispute arose and the dispute was referred, by mutual consent, to the arbitrator on different points.

(2.) The Arbitrator upheld the claim under items 1, 2, 9 and 12, which are the subject matter of this appeal. Item No.1 relates to extra rate for the extra work and item No.2 relates to the compensation for the damages suffered by the contractor by reason of the delay in completing the work on account of the delay on the part of the Government and the department and item No.9 relates to the illegal termination of the contract and item No.12 relates to disbursal of the amount withheld as also the security amount. Item No.12 is, thus, consequent to item No.9.

(3.) These findings by the Arbitrator were challenged by the State by filing an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1948 contending that the Arbitrator had misconducted in arriving at the findings in respect of the said items as the said findings are beyond the scope of the agreement, determining the rights and liabilities of the parties.