RAJAWAT AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are disposed of by this common order. Civil Revision No. 1193/1998 is filed by the contractor challenging the award passed by the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, Respondents -State has also preferred Civil Revision No. 51/99 challenging the same award passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that petitioner M/s Rajawat and Company has preferred a claim and raised a dispute before the Arbitration Tribunal. Petitioner claimed that he was required to execute the balance work which was not completed by the original contractor. Measurements of the work carried out by the previous contractor was not finalised by the respondents. The petitioner was not given any instruction pertaining to the work required to be executed by him. Petitioner claimed that immediately after the work order was issued and he started the work, execution of the work was delayed on account of non -supply of the copy of the agreement, drawing, designs specifications and non -finalisation of the work done by the previous contractor. Layout of the administrative block was delayed and after completion of foundation, respondents had issued instructions to stop the work. In October, 1990, petitioner was directed to complete 15% work and 85% work was withdrawn. Petitioner submitted a claim of Rs. 12,750/ - against the expenditure incurred for arranging the water supply and electrical connections. Rs. 24650/ - claim for carrying out preliminary work such as hutments etc., Rs. 72,760 against idle wages paid by the petitioner, Rs. 11, 350/ - for bringing material on the site and has not been paid as final bill, Rs. 2,00,000/ - towards overhead expenses and Rs. 20,000/ - towards loss of profits. He claimed total sum of Rs. 3,41,510/ -.

(3.) FIRST question involved in the case is whether claim as filed is within limitation. As per Clause 29 of the agreement, appeal was required to be submitted within thirty days before the Superintending Engineer and the Superintending Engineer was required to decide the appeal within sixty days. Thereafter, reference can be filed. Petitioner has not submitted an appeal within thirty days and the dispute was submitted before Superintending Engineer on 18 -5 -1991 which was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on 22 -7 -1994. Under Clause 29 of the agreement, Superintending Engineer was required to decide the dispute within sixty days. Claimant should not have waited beyond the period of sixty days the date of decision on 22 -7 -1994. The cause of action accrued to him on 18 -11 -1991. The appeal preferred by the contractor was deemed to be rejected as the appeal is not decided within sixty days from 18 -11 -1991. Under section 7 -B of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam (hereinafter, referred to as the "Adhiniyam"), claim was deemed to be rejected, if not decided within six months from 18 -5 -1991. Claimant was required to file dispute within one year from the date of deemed rejection. Section 7 -B provides that after deemed rejection, dispute should be preferred within one year.