GODAWARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT Vs. PAWAR AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010, passed on Misc. Civil Application (Requiring Judicial Inquiry No.16/2009). This application was moved under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth be referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Facts leading to the appeal in short can be stated as under :

(3.) Despite of these difficulties the contractor completed the work on 31.12.1988 and his final bill was paid on 31.3.1989. Before the Contractor could receive the last and final bill he was mentioning to the engineer in charge and his superior officer that the work involved excavation of hard strata and such excavation was outside the requirement of the contract. He first wrote this in his letter dated 6.1.1987 and demanded additional remuneration at certain rate. Soon thereafter, even Engineer In charge of the work supported his demand and informed in writing about it to the Superintending Engineer vide order dated 10.3.1987. The Engineer in Charge, however, informed through this letter that after completion of excavation, proposal for extra item, (additional work) outside the work would be submitted for approval etc and that payment could be made as per mutual agreed rates etc. The Engineer in charge soon thereafter informed to the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 28.7.1987 that the Contractor was constrained to use a quarry which was about 14 kilometers away and so the Contractor would probably demand extra remuneration for additional transportation for extended distance. The Engineer in charge also informed to the Superintending Engineer that the work of excavation was required to be done in heavy percolating water etc and would possibly demand additional remuneration In April, 1989, it seems, for the first time, the contractor made claim (of Rs.24.50 lac) for additional remuneration and vide a letter dated 19.4.1989, the Engineer in charge suggested to the Superintending Engineer that the contractor should be given about 3.36 lac more for the additional work. Apparently, he made his submission on this subject vide his letter dated 29.10.1990 to the Chief Engineer. A copy of this letter is not found on record, but it seems that he had partly supported the claim. In view of this the additional Assistant Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 26.11.1990 expressed his opinion partly in support of the contractor's claim. This letter was send to the Government. In this letter, the Assistant Chief Engineer recommended that the Contractor should get additional remuneration Rs.3.19 lac for the additional work which he did outside the requirement of the contract. But the claim of the contractor at that time was Rs.24.50 lac.