M VENKATA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE validity and legality of the judgment dated 1/9/2005 of XIV Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, is assailed in this civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, (for short, 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE appellant was awarded a contract for urgent repairs to open drains from secunderabad end to Dronachallam end for disposal of sullage water. The agreement was entered into on 12/2/1996 and the work had to be completed by 11/5/1996 i. e. , within a period of three months. The value of the work is Rs. 8,85,841/ -. Time for completion of the work was extended from time to time and the final extension was up to 15/5/1997. While granting extension of time, once penalty was imposed on the appellant/claimant. He requested for waiver of the penalty, but the railway (hereinafter referred to as 'the department') refused to consider his request. The appellant/claimant completed the work at Dronachallam end and when he was proceeding to take up the work at secunderabad end, the Department prevented him from carrying out the work because of gauge conversion. The department by letter dated 16-4-1998 asked the appellant/claimant to submit his claim with qualified 'no claim certificate'. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant submitted 'no claim certificate' on 19-6-1998 along with his claims data. Since the Department did not pay the amounts as claimed by the appellant/claimant, the appellant/claimant by letter dated 10-5-2001 requested the department either release the amounts claimed by him or refer the dispute to arbitrator. As the Department did not oblige him, he approached the High Court by filing application seeking appointment of Arbitrator. An Arbitrator came to be appointed and the disputes came to be referred to him. The appellant/claimant claimed the amounts under four heads. The amounts claimed by him are detailed hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_369_ALT2_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE Department filed statement before the Arbitrator denying its liability. It was averred in the statement that the work was urgent in nature to be completed within three months. The claimant did not complete the work within the stipulated time and time allowed to complete the work came to be extended from time to time. The Department pleaded before the Arbitrator that the claims made by the appellant/claimant are barred by limitation.