C SRINIVASA RAO AND Vs. P RAMANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Original Petitions, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by it's Chairman, The Superintending Engineer, World Bank Circle and the Executive Engineer, S and S Division III, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, entered into six different agreements with the Contractor P. Ramankutty for the execution of the Work. Subsequently, disputes arose between parties and they approached this Court by way of Civil Suits and applications. One Mr. C. Srinivasa Rao, Chief Engineer (Rtd.) Railways was appointed as Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator passed six different awards under six different agreements, entered into between the parties. Learned Arbitrator has filed six different Original Petitions under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for receiving the awards and to pass a decree in terms of the said awards. Aggrieved by the awards. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed Original Petitions challenging the said awards passed by the Arbitrator. All these Original Petitions were heard together as requested by both the parties and almost every ground raised in those petitions are similar apart from some specific grounds raised in particular original petitions. There is no necessity to take up every ground individually and on the contrary since the major grounds are one and the same in each and every original petitions they can be analysed together and the specific grounds pertaining to any specific original petition will be also answered separately and as such the grounds raised in the various original petitions need not be stated separately as they are going to be considered in the following paragraphs.(i) O.P. No. 428/95 filed by the Arbitrator under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and O.P. No. 585/96 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under Section 30 of the Arbitration are in respect of agreement No. WBC 68/1982-83 dated 16-3-1983.(ii) O.P. No. 429/95 filed by the Arbitrator and O.P. No. 584/96 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are in respect of agreement in WBC 70/82 dated 16-3-1983.(iii) O.P. No. 432/95 filed by the arbitrator and O.P. No. 583/1995 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are in respect of agreement WBC 69/82-83 dated 16-3-1983.(iv) O.P. No. 433/95 filed by the arbitrator and O.P. No. 799/95 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are in respect of agreement No. 29/1977-78 dated 3-2-1978.(v) O.P. No. 434/95 filed by the arbitrator and O.P. No. 801/95 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are in respect of agreement No. 3/77-78 dated 30-6-1977.(vi) O.P. No. 431/95 filed by the arbitrator is in respect of agreement No. 25/1977-78.(vii) O.P. No. 269/1995 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board also in respect of the said Agreement No. 25/1977-78 dated 9-6-1995.

(2.) All these six awards are in respect of the contracts in favour of the contractor Mr. P. Ramankutty. Both the parties have requested the Court to take up all twelve Original petitions together and they made common arguments in respect of the said Original Petitions and we have to consider the various grounds raised by the parties concerned.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has strenuously contended that these six awards passed by the learned arbitrator under these agreements are untenable and error apparent on the face of the award; therefore the same has to be set aside. It was also further argued that the arbitrator was biased and hence the awards have to be set aside.(i) One of the major arguments on the side of the Housing Board was that in O.P. Nos. 428, 429, 432/95, 583, 584 and 585/96 the approach road was already formed by a different contractor by name Sivaganapathy Subramaniam for whom the Housing Board has already settled the amount and the learned arbitrator in Agreement No. WBC 68/82-83 has allowed a sum of Rs. 35,000 and in Agreement No.WBC 70/82-83 has allowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh which is totally untenable and as such the award is liable to be set aside. The approach road was already there, the Housing Board has filed various documents for the proof of the contract in favour of one Sivaganapathy Subramaniam and also the documents to prove the payment made in favour of the said contractor.(ii) For the purpose of idling the labour, the learned arbitrator has awarded certain amounts which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board resisted by saying that no contractor will keep his men idle for months together and pay them the wages, that the arbitrator by allowing such amount has exhibited total non-application of mind which would amount to judicial misconduct.(iii) The next objection was that the arbitrator has awarded certain amounts and for loss of profit due to over stay on the work spot. The learned arbitrator has awarded certain amounts which were objected to by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on the ground that the period had to be extended because the contractor could not finish the work as agreed to by the parties in the agreement and at no stretch of imagination the Tamil Nadu Housing Board can be held responsible for such overstay in the work spot.(iv) In his award the learned arbitrator has cancelled the penalty imposed by the Housing Board which was also objected on the ground that without looking into Clause 60 of the Madras Detailed Standard Specifications the arbitrator has awarded amounts by cancelling the penalty rightly imposed by the Housing Board.(v) It was also argued on the side of the Housing Board that after payment of the final bill, no fresh claim can be made for such work and even then the learned arbitrator has awarded certain amounts which is not in consonance with the prevailing rules.(vi) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has contended that without looking into the Measurement Book regarding the work done, the learned arbitrator has awarded certain sums of money to the contractor which amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the arbitrator.(vii) The main objection raised by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the award of interest on the said sum to be paid by the Housing Board to the Contractor which is totally against the provisions of Madras Detailed Standard Specifications.These are all the main grounds on which the learned senior counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has putforth his arguments though there were some other grounds shown by him in particular cases.