B. K. ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19-9-2006 passed by the learned additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in F. A. O. No. 16(T) of 2004 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 7-9-2004 passed by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 23(T) of 1999 making the Award dated 28-2- 1999 of the arbitrator a rule of the Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that a contract agreement bearing CA. No. CWE/UMR/10 of 91-92 Provision of EOT Crane 2 Nos. for EME workshop at Umroi was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 on 31-10-1991. The contract agreement was signed pursuant to the work order issued by the Garrison Engineer (P) Ltd. , Umroi vide his letter dated 12-11-1991, which stipulated the date of commencement of the work to be 19th November, 1991 and the date of completion as 18-5-1992. The period of completion of the work was six months. When a dispute arose between the parties over the execution of the contract, the same was referred to an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the respondent authorities. The arbitrator so appointed was a serving engineer at the headquarters of Chief Engineer, Shillong. The arbitrator duly entered into reference and proceeded with the arbitration proceedings wherein both the petitioner and the respondents filed their claims and counter-claims.

(3.) The reference arose out of five claims made by the petitioner, namely, (i) payment for damages on account of delay in handing over of site quantified at (modified claim); (ii) payment on account of increase in the supply and fixing of 30 lbs rail and down shop lead incorporated in the works amounting to ; (iii) payment of on account of escalation of labour and material cost and should be paid at the rate specified in the CA; (iv) payment of interest @ 24% on account of delayed payment for a period of delays and (v) cost of reference to arbitrator quantified at In terms of the work order, the date of commencement of the contract works was 19-11-1991 and the date of completion of the work was 18-5-1992, which was extended of 14-11- 1992, on which date the work was also actually completed while final bill was paid on 19-12-1992. In so far as claim No. 1 is concerned, the arbitrator found that the respondent had failed to hand over the site to the petitioner on 19-11-1991 as corroborated by the letter dated 31-8-1992 of the Garrison Engineer, Umroi addressed to M/s Singh Associates indicating therein that the site was not ready for execution as on 31-8- 1992, which was also corroborated by the correspondence made by the petitioner with the GE, Umroi dated 15-9-1992 and 30-9-1992, which further confirmed that the site was not made available on 30-9-1992; that the petitioner placed orders for procurement of components well in time i. e. on 9-11-1991 and 12-11-1991; that non-availability of the site was the main ground or one of the grounds of the delay in completion of the work, which prompted the petitioner to seek extension of time for completion of the work and that there was thus fundamental breach of the contract agreement. The arbitrator accordingly awarded a sum of by way of damages due to delay in handing over the site under various heads such as idleness of staff and highly skilled labour, engineers, tools and plants and loss of overheads and profit.