SUPERINDING ENGINEER Vs. DEGA RAMALINGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals directed against the common judgment and decree of the Trial Court. CM A No. 1045 of 1991 arises out of judgment and decree in OP No.24 of 1989, whereas other CMA No.1 106 of 1991 arises out of judgment and decree in OP No.8 of 1989. OP No.8 of 1989 was filed by Dega Ramalinga Reddy, contractor under Sections 14(2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act (for short "the Act"), which was allowed and OP No.24 of 1989 was filed by Superintending Engineer under Section 30 of the Act which was dismissed. The parties shall be referred as 'Department' and 'Contractor'. Since the department lost both the OPs, they have filed these two appeals. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts. The contractor entered into a contract with the department on 7.10.1982 for construction of approach road to bridge at M. 48/2 and M. 48/5 of Madras-Calcutta Road, N.H. Division under agreement No.33/ 82/83. The contractor commenced the work, but did not complete, therefore disputes arose between the parties. According to the department, the contractor committed breach of contract, therefore they invoked Clause 61 of the preliminary specifications to Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications, resumed possession of the site and called for fresh tenders to complete the balance of work at the risk and costs of the contractor and got the work completed. The contractor put forward certain claims and sought for settlement of those claims under arbitration. The matter was referred to a panel of Arbitrators named in the agreement. As the Arbitrators did not enter upon the reference, the contractor filed OP No.26 of 1985 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The Court below, by its order dated 5.2.1989, appointed Sri T. Krishna Murthy, a retired Chief Engineer as the sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and after due enquiry passed an award on 5.2.1989.

(3.) The contractor put forward 12 claims before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator awarded Rs.33,542/- under 1st claim, Rs.2,25,020/-under 2nd claim, Rs.2,00,007/- under 3rd claim, Rs.3,02,842/- under 4th claim and Rs.8,000/- under 11th claim. The Arbitrator rejected the Claims 5 to 10. Claim No.12 related to future interest. According to the Arbitrator, he was not clear about the legal position with regard to the future interest, therefore he refrained from passing any award with regard to future interest. The contractor filed OP No.8 of 1989 to make the award rule of the Court. He also prayed that Claim No. 12 be decided by the Court.