KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. ALANKAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.19299 of 2021. The respondent herein approached this Court by filing the writ petition praying mainly for a direction to the 2 nd appellant to calculate, sanction and disburse the amount as per the Adjudicator's decision with respect to the disputes notified as per claim (m) and (n) in Ext.P7 and decided by the Adjudicator by Ext.P12 within a time frame and for interest on the said amount.

(2.) The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction works was awarded with a work by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL). Name of the work is "DRIP-Idukki Hydro Electric Project-Rehabilitation including remedial measures and basic facilitiesimprovement of approach roads to Idukki and Cheruthoni Dam - (part-II works)". Agreement was executed on 16/6/2016. The agreement contains an adjudication clause. As per the said clause if the parties to the contract notified a dispute, same shall be referred to an Adjudicator at the first instance. Whenever the Adjudicator takes decisions, either party may refer the decision of the Adjudicator for arbitration within 28 days of the Adjudicator's decision. If no reference is made for arbitration within 28 days, the decision of the Adjudicator will be final and binding.

(3.) After completing the works on 14/2/2018 the respondent notified a dispute on 8/1/2019 before the Adjudicator. The dispute included 25 claims under separate and distinct heads. The Adjudicator, by Ext.P7, decided claims under (m) and (n) in favour of the respondent. The respondent referred the remaining matters for arbitration by the Arbitral Tribunal. KSEBL did not choose to approach the Arbitral Tribunal against the claims decided in favour of the respondent. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the 2nd appellant filed a defence statement. However, no counter claim against granting of claims under (m) and (n) in favour of the respondent was raised. On 6/2/2021, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award. The respondent preferred the writ petition aggrieved by non-quantification and disbursal of the claims allowed in its favour by the Adjudicator. The appellants resisted the writ petition.