STATE OF KERALA Vs. VALLIAMMAL BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State and the Superintending Engineer, Kallada Irrigation Project are the appellants in both the appeals. The appeals arise out of arbitration proceedings in respect of certain disputes which arose out of a contract entered into by the respondent and the State. The contractor is the respondent in both the appeals. M.F.A. No. 188 of 1987 is against the order of the Sub Judge, Trivandrum dated 8-9-1986 in I.A No. 2255(a)/86 in O.P.(Arb.) No. 137 of 1986. M.F.A No. 323 of 1988 is against the judgment dated 4-2-1988 in O.P.(Arb.) No. 46 of 1987. The dispute between the parties arose under the following circumstances. The contract for the work of "Formation of R.B. Main Canal/ 18th Km from Ch. 17000 to 18200 m. - Balance work" was awarded to the late husband of the respondent Sri. V.K. Bhaskaran as per Selection Notice dated 5-12-1977 at 5% above the estimate rate. The agreement for the above work dated 13-12-1977 and the time for completion of the work was 22 months from the date of handing over of the site. The site was handed over on 21-l-1978 and the period of completion was till 20-11-1979. The estimated P.A.C. for the work was Rs. 24,03,789/-. On 1-1-1980, Sri. Bhaskaran (the original con tractor) died when the work was incomplete. The respondent in the appeals who is the wife of deceased husband and who was the nominee under the agreement, by a letter dated 7-1-1980 (Ext.R7 before the Arbitrator) expressed her desire to continue and carry on the balance work. By a letter dated 14-1-1980 (Ext.R8) her offer was accepted on condition that she should execute a supplemental agreement after producing the necessary heirship certificate. In pursuance of that, under Ext.R9 dated 16-5-1980, a supplemental agreement was executed by her in favour of the State agreeing to undertake the work on the same terms and conditions on which it was given to her deceased husband. On the same day, under Ext.R 10 another supplemental agreement was executed by which the time for completion of work was extended up to 31-12-1980. That agreement further provided that

(2.) After the termination of the contract by the State, the contractor raised certain disputes, which, according to her, arose under the contract, including mainly the following disputes:

(3.) The Arbitrator entered the reference on 25-8-1984. Parties filed statements before the Arbitrator detailing their claims and contentions. The State also made a counter claim for damages incurred due to rearrangement of the work which the contractor left unfinished. After taking evidence and considering the documents, the Arbitrator passed a non speaking award dated 18-7-1985. (There is a dispute between the panics as to the actual date on which the award was made which will be considered later). The details of the award will be dealt with later and for the present it is sufficient to state that it was only partly in favour of the contractor and the major claims made by her were rejected by the Arbitrator. The award was originally filed in the Kottarakkara Sub Court on 4-9-1985 and on the application of the claimant, that Court returned it to the Arbitrator on 27-2-1986. The contractor filed a petition on 12-3-1986 before the Arbitrator to file the award before the Trivandrum Sub Court. Accordingly the Arbitrator filed the award along with the records in the Trivandrum Sub Court.