STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. HILL WAYS ENGINEERING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 10.4.2015, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No. 109/2014, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with costs.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the respondent Hill Ways Engineering Company (for short, 'the Company'), pursuant to an agreement dated 22.1.2008, constructed a 70 metre span (single lane) steel girder bridge over river Kho at Aita (Kotdwar), District Pauri Garhwal. The work had to be started by 23.1.2008 and to be completed by 22.1.2009. However, due to several constraints or noncooperation by the appellants, the work could not be completed, as indicated above, and in this regard, the respondent sought cooperation by sending different letters dated 30.7.2008, 12.11.2009 and 30.8.2010 to the appellants and after running from pillar to post, in order to get rid of these hindrances like forest clearance, removal of trees, etc., the abutment work and riveting work could be completed much later. This way, the Company informed the completion of the work in March 2011. Even though the appellants did not accept such work to be so completed and raised certain objections. Ultimately, the appellants recognised the work completion on 7.5.2011. The payment could not be made to the Company as warranted under several bills. So, the bill was raised w.e.f. 7.5.2011, the date which was accepted by the PWD as the date of work completion. Even then, no payment was made. So, the Company was constrained to knock the door of the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of the arbitrator, as stipulated in the terms of the contract. Subsequent to attending the dates after dates, the sole arbitrator Mr. P.N. Tikku, who was the Chief Engineer (retired), Level I of Uttarakhand Government, was appointed by the High Court to settle the controversy between the parties. The contractor submitted the statement of 16 claims on dated 21.12.2013. An undated counter by the appellants department was put up before the arbitrator.

(3.) After considering the pros and cons and rendering the hearing to both the parties, an award dated 8.7.2014 was passed by the arbitral tribunal. Such award was challenged by the PWD under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, who has rendered this impugned judgment, as aforementioned. Still feeling dissatisfied, the PWD has come up invoking the provisions of Section 37 of the Act before this Court.