SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. K BAPIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters are directed against the common order dated 22-3-1991 of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in O.S. No.1096 of 1987 and (XP.No.528 of 1987 and they are also being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Superintending Engineer, N.S.Canal Circle, Nuzuved and the Executive Engineer, N.S.Left Canal, Nuzuved Milavaram are the appellants/petitioners in both the matters and the contractor K.Bapiraju and the sole arbitrator Mohd. Karimullaha Khan are the respondents.

(3.) The facts leading for preferring this appeal and revision are, in brief, as follows: The Superintending Engineer, N.S.Left Canal Circle, Nuzuved had invited tenders for "excavation of Machavaram major" from KM6 to KM8. The first respondent herein, K. Bapiraju, contractor, had submitted his tender for that work at Rs.4,04,759/- with 7.52% excess over the estimated contract value of Rs.3,76,431/-. The Superintending Engineer accepted the said tender of the contractor and agreement was executed on 29-07-1987. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the work had to be completed within six months from the date of handing over the site to the contractor. The completion of the work was delayed beyond the period fixed in the contract. For this the contractor had attributed the delay on the part of the department for not handing over uninterrupted possession of the whole site to him on 10-07-1978. Thus the dispute arose between the contractor and the department. As per the terms of the contract, any dispute arising out of the above contract has to be referred to the panel of the arbitrators. The contractors filed an arbitration petition dated 31-05-1983 before the panel of arbitrators as provided under the contract referring the dispute for their decision. The panel arbitrators passed an award on 09-02-1984. Having been aggrieved with the award, the contractor filed the suit O.S.No.247/84 and O.P.No.262/84 on the file of U Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Judge by his judgment dated 29-08-1986 set aside the award dated 09-02-1984 passed by the panel arbitrators and appointed the second respondent, herein, Mohd. Karimullahakhan Chief Engineer as the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. In pursuance of the said order, the second respondent/sole arbitrator entered upon the reference and passed the award on 15-06-1987. As there was some mistake in the heading of the claim for Rs.30,000/- the second respondent-arbitrator has given correction on 24-08-1987. The arbitrator allowed the claim Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 and rejected the claim Nos.2 to 4. The arbitrator also awarded interest at 24% per annum with effect from 31-05-1983 i.e. the date on which the first claim petition was filed before the arbitrators till the date of payment. In so far as the claim Nos.1 and 5 to 8 the contractor filed the suit O.S.No. 1096/87 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for making the award rule of the Court. The State Government preferred OP No. 528/87 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to set aside the award in respect of the claim Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 and granting of interest. Both the matters were tried together. No oral evidence was adduced on either side. But Exs-A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the contractor and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the Superintending Engineer. Exs.C1 to C3 were also marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned II Additional Judge held that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and that the arbitrator has given cogent and convincing reasons for his conclusions in passing the award. Hence the learned Judge made the award as rale of the Court. But as regards the interest, it was observed that the interest for the period between the date of arbitrator entering upon the reference and till the date of arbitrator entering upon the reference and till the date of award has to be deleted as it relates to "pendente lite" interest. But the learned Judge allowed the payment of interest at 24% per annum from 31-05-1983 to the date of entering upon reference by the second respondent-arbitrator and also the interest at the same rate from the date of award till the date of decree and also for future interest from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Thus the learned Judge made the award dated 15-06-1987 with correction on 24-08-1987, as rule of the Court in respect of the claim Nos.1 and 5 to 8 deleting the interest portion from the date of entering upon the reference by arbitrator to 15-06-1987. The contractor was also granted further interest at 24% per annum on the sums due from the date of award till the date of decree and thereafter till realisation. Therefore, the learned Judge decreed the suit O.S.No.1096/87 with costs and dismissed the O.P.No.528/87 without costs. Aggrieved by that common judgment dated 22-03-1991 of the learned n Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the State Government has come up with this C.M.A. and C.R.P.