SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS TIRUNELVELI Vs. T CHELLAGURUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in these two civil miscellaneous appeals is the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli. C.M.ANo.261 of 1985 arises out of the O.P.No.89 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur filed by the appellant for a decree in terms of the Award passed by the Arbitrator, who is the 2nd respondent the appeals. C.M.ANo.262 of 1985 arises out of O.P.No.108 of 1981 filed by respondent in both the appeals, to set aside the said Award in so far as it relates to 3 and 4 of the Award "A Common Judgment was passed in both the original petitions 22.10.1983.

(2.) THE 1st respondent is the Highways contractor. As per the agreement between appellant and the 1st respondent, the appellant gave the 1st respondent contractor, work of laying approach road to the bridge in question. THE said work consisted stages. One is collecting gravel on the said road side and the rate for doing the said was fixed at Rs.10.25 per cubic metre and the total gravel so collected admittedly 48,490 cubic metres. THE second stage of the work is spreading the said gravel and it or compacting it on the said road @ Rs.16 per ton cubic metre. Regarding these stages of this work, dispute arose between the said parties and the dispute was referred the abovesaid Arbitrator on 14.7.1978, who has passed the Award on 29.3.1979. appellant filed the abovesaid original petition for passing a decree in terms of the said Award, while the 1st respondent-contractor filed the abovesaid O.P.No.108 of setting aside the abovesaid portions of the Award as stated above.

(3.) NOW, let us deal with the abovesaid appeals. In the above referred to paragraph Award, the Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the first respondent's contention abovesaid work was completed, was not correct. Hence, the arbitrator refused to direct appellant to pay to the 1st respondent the 5% of value of work i.e., Rs.27,660 withheld the appellant Consequently, the Arbitrator concluded in paragraph 3(iii) of the Award for the balance of the work to be done, it has to be determined in advance as to how gravel is required. The Court below has modified the abovesaid conclusion in paragraph by holding that the abovesaid work had been completed. Hence, the Court below the appellant to pay the abovesaid 5% amount (which comes to Rs.27,660) to respondent. Further, consequently, it set aside the abovesaid conclusion reached paragraph 3(iii) of the Award.