WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Vs. PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and since they arise from two separate but similar Awards passed by the Arbitrator and the common judgment of the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in the Special Civil Suits filed by the respondent -civil contractor under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THAT the respondent -civil contractor was awarded a contract for construction of the Machine Shop and Store Room at Tadali, by the appellant -Corporation. The consideration for the contract in respect of the machine shop complex was fixed at Rs. 1,92,70,000/ -, whereas for the construction of the store room, the consideration amount was fixed at Rs. 68,50,000/ -. The contract was to be completed on or before 30/07/1990. It is not in dispute that due to the extension granted by the Corporation, the respondent -civil contractor completed the work of construction of the machine shop and the store room on 07/02/1992. There were some disputes between the parties and in view of the Arbitration agreement, in terms of the order passed in the proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the company appointed Shri A.K. Shenolikar, retired Chief Engineer, as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, on a consideration of the claim of the civil contractor, passed separate Awards dated 06/09/1995. Two separate Civil Suits were filed by the Civil Contractor under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for passing a decree in terms of the award. By a common judgment, dated 05/02/2000, the trial Court decreed the suits with costs and directed the appellant -company to pay the amount of Rs. 23,81,611/ - to the Civil contractor with interest at the rate of 17% per annum on the amount of Rs. 17,31,200/ - from the date of the Award till the realization of the decretal amount in respect of the construction of the Stores. Similarly, by decreeing the other suit filed by the respondent -civil contractor, the appellant -company was directed to pay the sum of Rs. 68,68,575/ - to the Civil contractor at the rate of 17% per annum on Rs. 50,09,500/ - from the date of the Award till the date of realization of the decretal amount. The judgment of the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, is assailed by the appellant -company in these appeals.

(3.) THE appellant -company filed the written statement in both the statements of claim. The claim of the civil contractor was denied, except a small part of the claim made in the final bills. The appellant -company specifically denied that the delay in the completion of the contract was attributable to the appellant -company. According to the appellant -company, the civil contractor was solely responsible for the delay in completion of the contract. According to the appellant -company, there was hardly any delay in payment of the bills and in respect of the non -supply of electricity, no claim could have been made by the civil contractor, in view of Clause 5 of the work order. It was pleaded in the written statement that the civil contractor could have secured the electric supply on its own and could have asked the appellant -company to reimburse, in terms of the offer of the civil contractor, dated 28/01/1988 by which the civil contractor had offered to charge the sum of Rs. 250/ - per tonne towards fabrication and erection, if electric supply was not made available by the appellant -company. The appellant -company had denied in the written statement that there was delay on the part of the appellant -company in supplying cement. It was the case of the appellant -company that the entire delay was attributable only to the civil contractor and hence, a counter claim was filed by the appellant -company. A specified amount was sought by the appellant -company from the civil contractor in the counter claim. The parties tendered the documents and the Arbitrator, by two separate awards, dated 06/09/1995 awarded almost all the claims made by the civil contractor and dismissed the counter claim of the appellant -company on merits as also on limitation.