STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. T CHANNAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .These two petitions are between the same parties, namely, petitioners are the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Executive Engineer, N.S. Canals, Kurichedu, Prakasham district and the Superintending Engineer, N.S. Canals, Peollore Colony, Ongole and the respondent No. 1 is the contractor in relation to two contract works executed by him for the petitioners. These revisions are directed against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur in O.S.No. 5 of 1993 and O.S.No. 83 of 1992 dated 30-1-1997 respectively. Although the subject-matter of the two petitions involve two different claims, since common questions of law and facts emanate from them, both the learned advocates have agreed that the petitions to be heard together and disposed of by means of this common judgment. Reference to parties shall be as per the status they occupied in the Court below.

(2.) Two works were entrusted to the petitioner by virtue of two contract works, namely, (1) construction of U.T. at M/10 + 240 of Darsi Branch canal of N.S. Canals and (2) earth work and excavation of Darsi Branch canal from M 12/7 + 351 to M 13/3 + 351 under Agreement No. 58 SE/1977-78 and No. 10 SE/1976-77 respectively. Disputes arose between the parties in regard to these contracts. As per the clause in the agreement for arbitration, the disputes were referred to the panel of arbitrators consisting of (1) Chief Engineer (Projects), Srisailam Project, (2) Dy. Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning, (Fin.Wing) Dept. and (3) Director of Accounts, Sriramsagar Project. In regard to the first work, respondent No. 1 raised seven claims. The panel of arbitrators, however, allowed claims 1,2, 4, 6 and 7 and rejected the claims 3 and 5. As regards the second work, the contractor - respondent No. 1 raised six claims, out of which, claims 2, 4 and 6(a) were allowed by the panel and the claims 1,3 and 5 were rejected. In regard to both the contracts, the respondent No. 1 received the communication of the award on 31-10-1985 (communicated by registered post). The respondent No. 1 filed O.P.Nos. 79 and 80 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur to set aside the respective awards in regard to the items of claims rejected by the panel of a aitratos. Both the O.Ps. were allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge Markapur and appointed one Sri A.P. Ranganadhaswamy, Retired Chief Engineer as sole arbitrator to decide the claims. The petitioners took the matter in appeal to this Court in C.M.A.Nos. 565 of 1990 and 563 of 1990 respectively. This Court allowed both the appeals by orders dated 15-10-1990. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed C.D.Nos. 458 of 1991 and 455 of 1991 respectively on 15-4-1991 before the Consumers Forum, Ongole which were returned for presentation to proper Court on 30-6-1991. The respondent No. 1 then filed O.S.No. 5 of 1993 and O.S.No. 83 of 1992 respectively on 11-12-1992 under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act. Both the suits were decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur on 30-1-1997 which led to the filing of the present revision petitions.

(3.) Mr. Rayudu, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration in addition to the grounds raised in the petition has raised two specific contentions namely, that the suits were barred by limitation and secondly the interest awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is beyond the period prescribed under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. According to him, both the suits should have been dismissed as barred by limitation and even assuming that they were to be decreed, the interest could not have been awarded from a date prior to the date of the decree.