STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RAO CONSTRUCTIONS BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three civil miscellaneous appeals under the Arbitration Act are by the State of Tamil Nadu and they are respectively against three separate orders all dated 4-10-1993 in O. P. Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 1993 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, filed by the Arbitrator (Mr. K. Thirunavukkarasu, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, now Chief Engineer posted as Director of Irrigation Management Training Institute on deputation) appointed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He is the sole arbitrator to arbitrate in the three disputes between the respondent contractor (the claimant before the arbitrator) and the appellate State, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Periyar Improvement Circle. Pursuant to the said Section 14 in the said O.Ps. the said arbitrator sought for the Court below to receive his three different awards all dated 31-3-1983, and pass necessary decrees thereof.

(2.) The Court below has passed three different judgments and decrees in terms of the three different awards holding that the respondent could submit the relevant account details in accordance with the awards, to the appellant and receive the amounts due to it. It also held that the appellant is liable to pay 15% interest on the relevant amounts due from the date of the awards till realisation.

(3.) The abovesaid three different disputes related to three different works executed by the respondent pursuant to the agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent which came into effect on 4-2-1991 for construction of link canal in the main scheme of modcrnisation of Periyar Vagai Irrigation System. The first dispute relates to the link canal from Km. 4 to Km. 8. The second dispute relates to the link canal from Km. 8 to Km. 11. The third dispute relates to the link canal from Km. 18 to Km. 22. As per the agreement between the parties the abovesaid work in each case, has to be completed by the contractor within 15 months, that is, by 3-5-1992. However, admittedly extensions were granted by the appellant to the contractor, due to causes which are attributable only to the appellant. In the case of first and third of three works to be executed, pursuant to the extensions granted, the works were completed on 31-10-83 and in the case of second of the abovesaid three works, pursuant to the extensions granted, the work was completed on 30-6-1993. In relation to the abovesaid three works, we are concerned in C.M.A. Nos. 1230 and 1231 of 1994, only with claim No. 1(a) and 1(b) in each of the said appeals and in C.M.A. No. 1232 of 1994 only with claim Nos. I, 2(a) and (b) 4(a) and 4(b) since the said claims alone were allowed by the arbitrator in favour of the respondent-claimant and the other claims were disallowed. We must also state that claim Nos. 1 (a) and 1(b) in each of the abovesaid first two appeals and claim Nos. 4(a) and 4(b) in the last appeal are of the same nature, while the abovesaid claim Nos.1 and the 2(a) and (b) in the last appeal are different.