GANGAREDDY M Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals and revision petition arise out of an award dated 9-3-1989 madeby the arbitrator as modified by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, by his Judgment dated 25-6-1990. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Superintending Engineer, I and CAD (Godavary Valley Circle) filed O.P. No. 395/1989 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award to the extent the claims were allowed. The O.P. was partly allowed by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Against that, C.M.A.No. 357/1991 was filed by the respondent in the O.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'contractor' or 'claimant'). The claimant filed O.P. No. 175/1989 under Sections 30 and 33 to set aside the award insofar as it went againsthim. That O.P. wasdismissed. Against the Judgment in O.P.No. 175/1989, the contractor filed C.M.A. No. 640/1991 and the State of A.P. has filed C.M.A.No. 236/1991. The contractor also filed O.S. No. 546/1989 under Section 14 to 17 of the Arbitrator Act for filing of the Award passed by the arbitrator (D-3 in the suit) and to make it a rule of the Court and to pass a decree in terms there of. The suit was partly decreed modifying the award. The learned Additional Judge directed D-l and D-2 (State of A.P.) a sum of Rs. 3,84,196/- to be paid to the plaintiff in respect of the claims made by him as against a sum of Rs. 3,96,196/- awarded by the arbitrator. The Court also reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 9%. Both sides have questioned this decree. The contractor filed C.M.A.294/1991 and the State of A.P. filed C.R.P. No. 547/1991. O-S.No. 546/1989, O.P. No. 175/1989 and O.P.No. 395/1989 were disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts are these. A contract was awarded to the appellant in C.M.A. No.357/1991 for doing 'Cement Concrete Lining Work' of Saraswathi Canal, Sriramsagar Project from 8.00 K.M. to 9.00 K.M. The agreement was entered into on 28-2-1983. The value of the contract is Rs. 4,61,663/-. It was to be completed within a period of six months from the date of handing over of the site. The site was handed over on 2-4-1983. The actual work started on 16-6-1983 and it could be completed only on 20-7-1985. The contractor invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement and filed a claim petition before the designated panel of arbitrators. The panel of arbitrators did not make the award within the time stipulated and therefore they become functus officio. The claimant, therefore, filed O.P.No. 76/1988 in the Court pf the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court for the appointment of sole arbitrat or for settlement of disputes arose in connection with the aforementioned contract. The Court allowed the petition by an order dated 17-8-1988 and appointed Sri K. Govinda Rao, retired District Judge as sole arbitrator in the place of panel of arbitrators for the adjudication of the disputes. The arbitrator entered on reference on 25-9-1988 on which date claim statement was filed by the contractor. The award was made on 9-3-1989. The arbitrator inter alia held that on account of release of water into the canal on 4 occasions i.e., 13-7-1983,26-2-1984,1-7-1984 and 25-3-1985, the contractor could not execute the work within the time schedule. The prolongation of the work was held to be on account of breach of contract and defaults on the part of the employer.

(3.) We shall now proceed to discuss the claims dealt with in the Award in seriatim and record our conclusions as to whether the impugned Judgment of the Civil Court confirming or modifying the award is sustainable.