K MARAPPAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TBPHLC CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE parties are common and the questions that arise are also common, though falling under three different transactions, as arise under common judgment, these matters are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) HEARD Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Superintending Engineer of the State and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent for the Contractor-claimant.

(3.) ALL these appeals and revisions are at the instance of both the sides namely the concerned Superintending Engineer and the contractor, aggrieved against the common judgment in OP Nos. 118, 119, 120 of 1988, o. S. Nos. 165, 167 and 169 of 1988. In the appeals in CMA Nos. 479, 93, 94, 480, 481 and 95 of 1990 arise out of the applications filed in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act seeking to set-aside the awards passed in o. P. Nos. l 18/88, 119/88 and 120/88. Whereas the revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in CRP nos. 303, 304, 305, 1039, 1040 and 1041 of 1990 arise out of the suits filed by the contractor seeing a decree in terms of the awards passed by the Arbitrator dated 19. 8. 1988 in respect of disputes arising under the three different agreements by the second respondent-Arbitrator.