STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. N SIVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the Civil Revision Petition arise out of the common judgment dated 17-3-1986 in O.S.No.1165 of 1984 and O.P.No.376 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad making the award rule of the Court.

(2.) The 1st respondent is a contractor. He entered into a contract with the state with respect of construction of a wall from M.O.O.O. to M.O.O.6-447 for protection of Alampur town. The agreement was entered into between the parties on October 22,1977. The site was handed over to the Contractor on 24-10-1977. As per the agreement, the work was to be completed on or before June 23,1979. The work could not be completed within the said stipulated time. The first extension for completion of the work was granted by the State till 31-5-1980. Even by that time the work could not be completed. That necessitated granting of second extension till 30-11-1981. It appears that the work was completed by the date. After completion of the work the contractor raised certain dispute by issuing a notice to the State. The state appointed a sole Arbitrator Justice C. Kondaiah, a retired Chief Justice of this Court, on November, 18,1983. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on December 29,1983 and passed the Award on September 28,1984. Before the Arbitrator the contractor made as many as eleven claims, out of them only eight claims were accepted by the Arbitrator. They are claims 1 to 7 and 11. Thereafter the contractor filed O.S.No.1165 of 1984 to direct the arbitrator to file the award into court and made the award rule of the court. The State filed O.P.No.376 of 1984 to set aside the award with regard to claims, 1-7 and 11. By a common judgment dt.17-3-1986 the learned First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, decreed the suit making the award rule of the Court and dismissed the O.P. filed by the State. Against the judgment in O.P.No.376 of 1984 C.M.A. No.1089 of 1986 is filed by the State and against the Judgment in O.S.No.1165 of 1984 C.R.P.No.2646 of 1986 is preferred by the State.

(3.) The learned Advocate-General appearing for the State urged two contentions before us; they relate to claim No.7 and claim No.11. the contention with regard to claim No.7 is tht the escalation charges granted by the arbitrator do not form part of the agreement; therefore the escalation charges ought not to have been awarded. In any event, submits the learned Advocate-General, unless the arbitrator finds that the delay in completion of the work is attributable to the State, no escalation charges ought to have been awarded to the contractor, Sri N.V.B.Sankara Rao, the learned Counsel for the contractor, on the other hand, contends that delay is only attributable to the State and therefore the contractor is justified in making the claim and that as the Award is a non-speaking award, the reasons for grant of a particular claim, not having been spelt out in the award, cannot be speculated and therefore the contention of the Advocate-General is liable to the rejected.