SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. D RANGANAYAKULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order disposes of the appeal as well as the revision. The Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal are appellants 1 and 2. In the revision, the State is the first petitioner represented by the Superintending Engineer of the Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal. The second petitioner in the revision is the second appellant in the appeal. The two respondents in the appeal and the revision are identical. The second respondent is the Hon'ble Arbitrator who is merely a proforma party. The parties shall be referred to as the SE, the EE (Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer), the Contractor and the Hon'ble Arbitrator for convenience.

(2.) THE SE and the EE challenge the common judgment and decrees in O.S.No.108 of 1996 and O.S.No.110 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. Through this judgment, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet made the award passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator on 02.03.1995 under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Rule of the Court. Aggrieved by the judgment in O.S.No.110 of 1996, the SE and the EE laid the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment in O.S.No.108 of 1996, they laid the revision. However, it is a common judgment with common reasoning by the trial Court.

(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of the appeal and the revision may briefly be stated at this stage. THE facts are: (a) THE first respondent is a contractor. He laid a tender for "lining the bed and sides of Nagarjuna Sagar Right Main Canal from Kilometer 23.13 to Kilometer 23.41". THE estimated value of the work was Rs. 12.41 lakhs. THE bid of the contractor was accepted. THE agreement between the SE and the SE and the contractor concluded on 18.04.1986 for a sum of Rs. 11.22 lakhs. THE contract is required to be completed during the periods of the closure of the canal in 1986 and 1987. THE contractor, claiming that he executed the works entrusted to him, requested for the settlement of the claims. He also issued a notice on 02.04.1991 to the SE to settle his claim. (b) Disputes arose between the SE and the EE on the one side and the contractor on the other side regarding the work conducted by the Contractor. THE work indeed could not be completed in 1987 as contemplated by the agreement as the canal could be closed by 31.03.1988 only. THE contractor claimed that he suffered losses in the execution of the works. (c) THE contractor consequently invoked the arbitration clause and filed O.P.No.167 of 199.1 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. THE Court appointed the Hon'ble Arbitrator as the sole arbitrator. (d) THE Hon'ble Arbitrator awarded Rs. 15,21,600/- in favour of the Contractor together with interest at 24% per annum from 05.01.1994 on which date the reference was entered into by the Hon'ble Arbitrator till 02.03.1995 on which date the award was passed. THE interest awarded by the Hon'ble Arbitrator worked out to Rs. 4,23,000/-. THE Contractor consequently was declared to be entitled to Rs. 19,54,600/-from the SE and the EE. (e) THE Hon'ble Arbitrator also awarded compensation to the first respondent under items 1 to 13 of the claim of the Contractor at Rs. 16,12,400/- together with simple interest at 24% per annum. THE total value of the amount for which the award was passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator was Rs. 35,72,000/-. (f) THE EE contended that the award was vitiated by misconduct of the Hon'ble Arbitrator and that the Hon'ble Arbitrator ignored Clause (10) of the Schedule-C of the Special Conditions of Agreement. THE claim of the Contractor was thus resisted by the appellants completely. (g) In their turn, the SE and the EE filed O.S.No.110 of 1996 to set aside the award of the Hon'ble Arbitrator. THE learned trial Judge did not record any evidence. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge considered that the award was just and proper. He consequently allowed O.S. No.108 of 1996 and dismissed O.S.No.110 of 1996. He made the award the Rule of Court. As already pointed out, impugning the judgment, the appellants laid the appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.110 of 1996 and laid the revision against the judgment in O.S.No.108 of 1996.