LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-25

PAWAN HANS HELICOPTER LTD Vs. MESSERS ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION

Decided On June 07, 2007
PAWAN HANS HELICOPTER LTD. Appellant
V/S
ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Pursuant to the allotment of work for construction of compound wall and for construction of a bridge over a nullah to the respondents, respective work contracts were entered into between the parties. The work in both the cases was required to be completed within a specified time. However, since it could not be completed within the said period, the time for completion of the work was extended. Consequent to the dispute arising between the parties, same was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreements. The learned arbitrator had held that the respondents would be entitled to claim 15% escalation charges as against the 30% escalation charges claimed by the respondents for the period beyond the expiry of the contractual period. As the appellants herein were not satisfied with the awards, they preferred petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, herein after referred to as "the said Act", for setting aside of the award. Consequently, the awards were partially modified to the benefit of the respondents. Being dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned judgments and consequently to the awards is three-fold: firstly, that the learned arbitrator could not have granted the claim for escalation of rates made by the respondents and, secondly, that the contract between the parties does not provide for second final bill and therefore no claim based on the second final bill could have been allowed by the learned arbitrator and thirdly that the arbitrator could not have entertained the dispute having been raised beyond the period of limitation. The challenge to the awards regarding grant of the claim for escalation of rates is on two grounds: firstly, that the claim could not have been granted in view of Clauses 18 and 34 of the agreement between the parties and secondly, that the respondents had already issued "No Due Certificate" and, therefore, any claim made after the issuance of such certificate could not have been granted.