SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three cases arise out of the common judgment dated 17.3.1986 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 181/84 and O.S. No. 452 of 1984, on the file of his court.

(2.) THE petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2526/86 and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 1229 of 1986 which arise out of O.S. No. 452/84 and O.P. No. 181/84, is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. THE respondent in these cases (hereinafter referred to as "the contractor") is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2775 of 1987 which arise out of O.P. No. 181/84, referred to above. We may briefly refer to the facts which led to the filing of these cases.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the Government in C.M.A. No. 1229 of 1986 and C.R.P. No. 2526 of 1986, contends that in the agreement there is a specific condition which provides that the claim made beyond fifteen days from the date of cause of action shall not be entertained and all the claims preferred by the contractor were made beyond fifteen days and therefore entertainment of the claims itself is without jurisdiction and therefore the award is liable to be set aside. Mr. P. R. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the contractor, on the other hand contends that Condition No. 83 of the agreement does not stipulate any limitation for preferring the claims, therefore the claims cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In any event, submits the learned counsel, the award being a non-speaking award the court cannot go into the reasons for entertaining the claim.