STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P SOMASEKHARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters are inter-connected and so we are disposing them of by this common judgment.

(2.) The point at issue in both these matters concerns the validity of the award passed by Sri S.C. Rangappa, Retired District Judge, in the matter of Arbitration of disputes arising within the contract for construction of Anicut across Gowrarapu Vagu, Komatipalli Village, Eturunagaram Taluk, Warangal District under Agreement No. 2/77-78, dated 7-4-1977. As per the agreement dated 7-4-1977, the Contractor was required to carry out works valued at Rs. 8,25,125.92 Ps. and the work was to be completed before 20th January, 1978. The site was handed over on 21-1-1977 but as the contractor could not complete the work, the time for completion was extended four times, the last extension expired on 31-12-1983. The Contractor could do work of the value of only Rs. 3,92,044/-. On 3-1-1984, the contract was terminated under Clause 61 of P.S. to A.P. Detailed Standard Specifications. After getting the measurements recorded, the balance work was entrusted to another contractor on 13-3-1984. The Contractor filed O.P. No. 397 of 1987 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The learned Judge appointed Sri S.C. Rangappa, a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator on 30-12-1987.

(3.) A total of 16 claims were preferred by the contractor, 8 under the Part-A and another 8 under the Part-B. The Arbitrator rejected in toto the claims under Part B totalling Rs. 7,39,617/-. In respect of the 8 claims under Part-A, the learned Arbitrator upheld claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 totalling Rs. 3,16,310/-. The State represented by Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Warangal filed O.P.No. 306 of 1990 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court for setting aside the award to the extent of claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. The State also filed O.P.No. 490 of 1990 for making the award in relation to the rejection of claim Nos. 4,7 and 8 a "rule of Court." The contractor filed O.P.No. 17 of 1991 requesting the Court to make the award a rule of Court.