R. N. TANDON Vs. BETWA RIVER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ayush Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant. No Advocate appeared for the respondent though name of Sri A.K. Rai and Sri U.N. Sharma are shown for the respondent and fresh notice was also issued which has been received by the respondents. The appeal is pending since 1991. The respondents have been negligent in appointing a counsel also. Today also, no-one represents the respondents though time and again notices have been sent to them. The fact that on the first occasion, jthe officer concerned was of the view that no interest would be charged from the appellant later on Suo Motu on audit objection, interest was ordered to be charged. The appellant has already deposited the said interest because of the order of the District Court which upheld the objection of the respondent herein, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) By means of this appeal, the appellant - contractor challenges the order and judgment dated 15.11.1990 passed by District Judge, Jhansi in Suit No. 13 of 1988 (M/s R.N. Tandon & Sons Vs. Betwa River Board) allowing objections of the respondents and refusing to accept the award of sole arbitration.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that Betwa Board had entered into a contract with M/s R.N. Tandon & Sons for the construction of earth Dam on the left flank of River Betwa at Rajghat from Km. 4.04 to 6.05 (Lot II) and the agreement was executed with respect thereto on 14.1.1981 at Rajghat, district Lalitpur, U.P. There was some dispute between the parties with respect to the recovery of interest on the cost of machines taken by the contractor - appellant herein. AND WHEREAS DISPUTES pertaining to the 'Interest charges on the cost of machines made available to the claimant by the Board' having arisen between the two parties, of the said contract, the Chief Engineer (R), Tetwa River Board, Nandanpura, Jhansi, in pursuance of the aforesaid conditions of contract, nominated me, as the sole Arbitrator under his No.4921/CE/BRB/Appeal-2 (Tandon)/dated 12/86. Ruling of the Executive Engineer considered unacceptable by the contractor arose for the first time when the Executive Engineer, Rajghat Dam No.II, Chanderi Proposed recovery of the interest. The claimants asked for clarification from the Superintending Engineer as per clause 52 of Agreement. S.E. Gave his decision that recovery of interest on advance in form of Machinery is well covered under clause 9 of special conditions of the contract read along with clause 8 and 9 of the General conditions. C.E. Examined the arguments of both the parties gave his decision that no interest charge is leviable on the cost of machines and only cost is to be recovered from claimant as shown in column 4 of Annexure VII of the Agreement.