P. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Sec. 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Arbitration, OP Nos.61 and 62 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore. The admitted facts are as follows:

(2.) The appellant has been entrusted with the work of Rehabilitation of Parambikulam Main canal and Rehabilitation of Distributories of Trippur Branch canal and Vadasinnaripalayam Branch Canal. The terms of both the contracts are identical. The dispute relates to the price adjustment claimed by the appellant. The fact that the works were completed within the period fixed under the contract is not in dispute. The final bills raised by the appellant/contractor have also been paid fully. As far as the price adjustment claimed by the appellant, the appellant had sent their bill for price adjustment on 04.04.2001 making a claim for Rs. 41,13,751.00 in CMA No.2860 of 2013 and Rs. 14,18,014.00 in CMA No.2861 of 2013.

(3.) The respondents took a plea that the claim relating to price adjustment is belated, therefore they are not liable to pay. The matter was later referred to an Arbitrator as per the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreements entered into between the parties. Before the learned Arbitrator, the claim of the appellants was resisted mainly on the ground that the price adjustment bills were received by the Department only on 04.04.2001 and under Clause 47.1.C of the conditions of the contract, the price adjustment bills are to be made every quarter. Therefore, according to the respondents, they are not liable for payment of any amount. It also claimed that having raised a final bill and having accepted payment of the final bill amount on 31.03.2001, the appellant cannot make a claim for price adjustment bill. The correctness of the quantum of the claim made under the price adjustment bills, was not disputed by the respondents.