SETH MOHANLAL HIRALAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a Reference-petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal with respect to a dispute arising out of the contract for construction of canal aquadect at Channel 235 on Palakmati river. The estimated cost was Rs. 37. 44 lacs and the tendered cost was Rs. 52. 43 lacs. The period for completion was 18 months i. e. upto 11-10-79. The petitioner claimed that an amount of Rs. 5. 60 lacs be paid to him on account of the difference in amount for using black trap instead of hard metal in all the items of concrete 14000 M. A further sum of Rs. 3. 50 lacs was claimed on account of the loss suffered due to abnormal reduction in quantities of cement concrete 1:3:6 in foundation and superstructure. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum was also claimed. Another claim was added by way of an amendment during the Pendency of the Reference-petition before the Arbitration Tribunal. The amount of final bill Rs. 81,900/- was also claimed with interest. The petitioner restricted interest to Rs. 80,000/- only. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,61,900/- was claimed on account of the outstanding dues of final bill.

(2.) THE allegations were denied by the respondents. The case of the respondents was that Bineka Quarry was specified in the Agreement from where hard graded metal was to be collected. Black trap is one of the varieties of the hard metal. This black metal was available in the Bineka Quarry which was at a distance of 11 Kms. The respondents also submitted that the petitioner started bringing the crushed gravel from Nayagaon which was at a distance of 4 Kms. from the site, which was obtained by crushing rocks and it was not a hard metal. It was further the case set up by the respondents that as per Clause 2-1-39 along with quarry chart Annexure-C which specifically mentions that the quoted rates of contractor shall be inclusive of all leads and lifts and that the details shown in Annexure-C were only as a guide to the contractors but the contractors before tendering should satisfy himself regarding quality and quantity available and provide for any variation in respect of lead, lift, etc.

(3.) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had used the material from Nayagaon Quarry which was not as per the requirement of the tender document. In Reference-petition Para 28 an averment is made that material extracted from Nayagaon Quarry was got examined by the petitioner in the laboratory but the report of the laboratory was not produced before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal had drawn adverse interference against the petitioner. It was also recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner was bound to use hard metal by extracting the same from Bineka Quarry and the metal used from Nayagaon Quarry has not been proved by the petitioner to be as per specifications and standard as specified in the contract. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner's request to revise the items rate due to reduction in quantity of the work, was refused by the department. With respect to the claim of the final bill, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that final bill was prepared during the pendency of the Reference-petition wherein it was found that an amount of Rs. 1,87,356/- was due against the petitioner. The correctness of the final bill has not been assailed. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner has failed to satisfy that the amount of Rs. 1,87,356/- was not due against him.