TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM TIRUPATHI Vs. K SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the CRPs and CMAs raise common questions of law and hence they are decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the filing of CRPs and CMAs can be traced out to the extent necessary.

(3.) The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for brevity 'TTD') had issued tender notifications for "Improvements to 1st ghat road by providing hot-mix process". The entire stretch of the ghat road is over 17 KM. The stretch was divided into six strips and they were notified. First stretch is from KM '0' to '3', second stretch is from '3' KM to '6' KM, third stretch is from 6 KM to 9 KM, fourth stretch is from 9 KM to 12 KM, fifth stretch is from 12 KM to 15 KM and sixth stretch is from 15 KM to 17/4 KM. Therefore, six tender notifications were issued calling for the tenders from the prospective tenders and one Mr. Balaiah (hereinafter referred as Contractor), the 1st respondent in the first set of CRPs and also the CMAs was found to be the lowest tenderer for three works. In respect of balance three tenders, one Mr. K. Subbarayudu, the 1st respondent in the second set of CRPs and also the CMAs, was the lowest tenderer. The facts and events in the two sets of tenders are identical and therefore the facts were referred to only in one set of tenders. The contractor furnished necessary bank guarantee and Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred as 'EMD'). As there was delay in acceptance of the tenders, the contractor requested the TTD to refund the EMD deposits which were refunded. But, thereafter negotiations took place and the tender was revalidated upto 31-7-1982. In the meanwhile. Contractor requested the TTD to give 10 per cent interest free mobilisation advance against the bank guarantee and in such an event, he expressed his readiness to reduce his rates by 2 per cent. The said offer was accepted by the TTD and the contractor was directed to pay the EMD and sign the agreement within seven days. It is stated that the contractor was trying to oblain the bank guarantee and if he was unsuccessful, he would not claim 10 per cent interest free advance in which case, 2 per cent rebate would not arise. The TTD informed the contractor that his request was accepted to give interest free advance against the bank guarantee. But, however, since the contractor failed to produce the bank guarantee, the TTD decided to go in for an ordinary renewal cast of thin forming of cheap carpet. Thereupon, the Contractor issued a notice to the TTD on 27-8-1983 to refer the matter to the arbitration, and on 7-10-1983 the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator namely the Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings Circle, Cuddapah. The said Arbitrator refused to proceed with stating that there was no concluded contract between the parties. Against this action, the contractor filed a suit which was decreed in his favour holding that there was a concluded contract and appointed the sole Arbitrator one A.P. Ranghanatha Swamy, Retired Chief Engineer of Hyderabad. Against the judgment and decree in the suit, the TTD filed CRPs. before the High Court in CRP Nos.1783 of 1987 and 1784 of 1987. This Court confirmed the findings of the civil Court that there was a concluded contract. But, reversed the appointment of the sole Arbitrator Sri A.P. Ranganatha Swamy and directed the arbitration to be referred to the designated Arbitrator namely the Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Cuddapah. Thereupon, the proceedings were initiated before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator or, 4-5-1988 passed the Award. Before the Arbitrator, the Contractor made a claim in respect of 9 items in three contracts in respect of KM. 0-3, 3-6 and 6-9, and in respect of balance three contracts, the claim was made in 12 parts. The learned Arbitrator passed an Award for consolidated amount. The learned Arbitrator rejected the claim under the head loss of advances in all the claim applications and passed an consolidated award jointly in respect of claim Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 relating to three contracts upto 9 KM and in respect of other balance contracts, consolidated amount was passed 1 to 6, 8 and 9. Apart from this, individual claim for EMD, costs and interest was also allowed. Thus, he allowed the following claims: