NARMADA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. UJJAIN NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern disposal of Civil Revision Nos. 568, 569, 570, 571, 572 and 573 of 1996 (M/s. Narmada Construction Company, Khalghath v. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain and 2 others) as all these Civil Revisions have been preferred against the common Award dated 31-1-1996 passed by M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case Nos. 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 and 221 of 1991.

(2.) THE long and short facts involved in these reference petitions are that the petitioner Company filed aforesaid seven reference petitions before the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal for claiming an award for Rs. 3,29,000. 00; Rs. 6,70,049. 00; Rs. 2,63,103. 00; Rs. 3,90,000. 00; Rs. 92,369. 00; Rs. 1,71,819. 00 and Rs. 2,16,096. 00 respectively against Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain for infructuous overheads; loss of profit; refund of earnest money and ante-lite interest/the terms and conditions of the contracts, the circumstances and the facts of all these seven cases are identical, except for numbering of the exhibited documents. It is not in dispute before us that the entire evidence in all these seven cases is the same and, therefore, the Tribunal had discussed the evidence only in Reference Case No. 215 of 1991.

(3.) PETITIONERS claim in all these reference petitions before the Tribunal was that in all these seven reference petitions identical contracts for asphalting work by hot-mix method on different roads in the town of Ujjain were awarded to the petitioners. The notice inviting tenders were issued. Tenders were received on 28-10-1989 and its acceptance in Reference Case No. 215 of 1991 was communicated on 13-7-1990. It is not in dispute that there was delay in the acceptance of tenders by the Government. The work order was issued on 9-10-1990. The case of the petitioners was that after issuing work order on 9-10-1990, the site for asphalting work could not be made available during the entire stipulated period of completion because the base was not fit and ready for the asphalting work as the roads were damaged due to heavy rains and were required to be strengthened by water bound macadam (W. B. M.) base and thus could not be made available for asphalting work.