STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R THANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows: - Respondent in the appeals was entrusted as a Contractor to do the work of construction of Rubble Mound Break Water at Valinokkam in Ramanathapuram District as per Agreement No. 11/se/83-84 dated 25. 11. 1983. THE total value of the work was Rs. 33 ,85,540 /- and time for completion of the work was four months from the date of handing over the site. THE site was handed over on 4. 12. 1983. However, the contractor could not complete the work within the stipulated time and on the basis of his applications, extension had been granted and ultimately he had completed the work on 30. 4. 1985. THEreafter, the contractor raised various claims to the tune of Rs. 27 lakh s. In O. S. No. 50 of 1996 filed before the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram , for appointment of arbitrator, an Advocate was appointed as arbitrator. THE arbitrator submitted his award on 9. 1. 1989 allowing some of the claims of the contractor. THE present appellants filed O. P. No. 1 of 1989 under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act to set aside the award. THE respondent had filed O. P. No. 3 of 1989 for making the award a Rule of the Court. THE Subordinate Judge modified a portion of the award and made it a Rule of the court with a further direction to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the award till payment. Aggrieved by the decision of the Subordinate Judge, the present two appeals have been filed by the State.

(2.) THE arbitration proceedings commenced on 10. 8. 1987. THE claimant had initially made claims under 30 heads as per his application dated 22. 7. 1985 and subsequently, on 1. 4. 1986, he made some additional claims. During the arbitration proceedings, both the parties amicably resolved Claim no. 11, which was recorded accordingly. THE Arbitrator had rejected Claim No. 3, claim No. 6, Claim No. 8, Claim No. 9, Claim No. 10, Claim No. 12, Claim No. 17, claim No. 18, Claim No. 19, Claim No. 21, Claim No. 23, Claim No. 24, Claim No. 25, claim No. 27, Claim No. 28, Claim No. 29, Claim No. 31, Claim No. 32, Claim No. 33 and Claim No. 34. Even though the arbitrator had allowed Claim No. 15, such award has been set aside by the Subordinate Judge. In respect of Claim No. 2, the arbitrator had awarded a compensation of Rs. 6 ,57,00 0 / -. This has been modified by the Subordinate Judge, who has observed that the claimant was entitled only to Rs. 1 ,67,53 5.

(3.) THE award relating to Claim No. 2, Claim No. 4, Claim no. 13 and Claim No. 30 requires more careful consideration.