PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED TRIBAL Vs. ODYSSEY ADVANCED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal involves challenge to the judgment passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore dated 7.05.2012 involving Arbitration petition No.1 of 2012 and also involving setting aside of the award passed by the sole arbitrator on 4.10.2009 as appearing at Annexures-6 & 5 respectively.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that pursuant to the appointment of the sole arbitrator by the order of the High Court dated 18.01.2008 in Arbitration petition no.3 of 2005, the respondent herein submitted a statement of claim involving tender notice vide Annexure-1, the work order vide Annexure-2 and the agreement between the parties vide Annexure-3. The factual backdrop as borne from the statement of the claim by the present respondent is that the Integrated Triban Development Authority (hereinafter in short reflected as ITDA), Koraput invited a tender for work involving construction of hostel building and staff quarters for the purpose of model school at Pungar in the district of Koraput at an estimated cost of Rs.1,71,00,000/- (Rupees One crore seventy one lakh) vide tender call notice no.1388 dated 15.05.2002 as appearing at Annexure-1. Two numbers of tenderers participated and on opening of the tenders on 17.06.2002 the respondent's tender was evaluated to be the lowest one. However, instead of issuing work order in favour of the respondent, there was negotiation on his rates. Ultimately the item rate tender of the claimant/respondent was accepted after the rates were further reduced and agreed. Based upon which, the work order dated 15.07.2003 vide Annexure-2 was issued in favour of the respondent. Pursuant to the issuance of work order, the parties entered into the agreements setting out the terms of contract explained therein as available at Annexure-3. The respondent further averred in the claim petition that the value of the contract would be Rs.1,81,50,675.00/- (Rupees One crore eighty one lakh fifty thousand six hundred seventy five only) and the scope of work was to be performed over a period of 18 months. As per the work order/contract the date of commencement of the work was 15.07.2003 and the completion was by 14.01.2005. Further, the scope of work comprised of the following components:

(3.) In the above backdrop of the matter, the claimant made the following prayer: