SANJAY R TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision preferred under Section 19 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for brevity 'the Act'), the applicant has called in question the sustainability of the award dated 28-10-2004 passed by M. P. Arbtiration Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") in Reference Case No. 35/2002 whereby the Tribunal has held that the two claims putforth by the petitioner were barred by limitation and further the same were not tenable on merits also.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that the petitioner/revisionist as claimant was awarded a contract No. 7/dl of the. year 1991-92 in respect of the work VRB (Village Road Bridge) at R. D. 2005 meters of right bank canal of Bargi Dam. As per the claimant, he completed 82% of the contract work in about nine months. He applied for grant of extension on 2-12-1992 for a period of three months which was granted by the Executive Engineer but he could not utilize the same as there was non- supply of requisite quantity of steel by the owner. The petitioner completed the work as far as possible as per the supply quantity of steel. It was admitted by the owner that the petitioner had completed the contract work of about Rs. 9,05,466/ -. According to the revisionist, he made a prayer to the respondents to finalize the contract and release the amount of final bill as well as security deposit/earnest money vide Exhibit P-10 to which a reply was sent on 27-6-1996 as per Exhibit P-l that the contract in question had already been terminated by letter dated 5-5-1994 taking recourse to the Clause 4. 3. 3. 3 of the agreement.

(3.) IT was urged before the Tribunal that the recission of the contract was absolutely arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in respect of final bill and earnest money and security deposit amounting to Rs. 60. 000/ -. Thus, in toto the claimant putforth a claim of Rs. 90,000/ -. It was averred in the petition that the cause of action arose on 15-9-2000, when the claims were presented to the Superintending Engineer who is the final authority as per agreement and finally on 14-3-2001 when the Superintending Engineer has not given his decision on the claims.