STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KOMAL CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Bihar and its officials have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by learned Sub -ordinate Judge -1st, Kaimur at Bhabua in Execution Case No.3 of 2012. The said Execution Case was filed for execution of the arbitration award dated 26.03.2008, as contained in Annexure -3 to the writ application. The Arbitrator issued the award with the following directions : -

(2.) AFTER the award was prepared and published, petitioner had moved this Court in writ jurisdiction. However, the writ application was disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.02.2012, vide Annexure -5, granting him liberty to approach the competent civil court in the matter, pursuant to which he had filed a petition for execution of award. The executing court while passing the order in execution case has accepted the claim of the petitioner and has directed for payment of an amount of L 30,72,930/ - to the petitioner with interest with effect from April, 2004.

(3.) AFTER some arguments, Mr. Maitin learned senior counsel for the respondents accepts that the arbitrator had not determined any amount payable to the petitioner. Hence, the executing court could not pass orders for payment of the amount to the petitioner treating it as decreetal amount. But he submit that the arbitrator had directed the Executive Engineer to prepare and pass final bills of the petitioner and to release any admissible amount to the petitioner, if found due thereafter. He submits that all the materials had been placed before the arbitrator on the basis of which he had prepared and passed the award. He submits that for a number of years the final bill was not prepared. Hence, petitioner was moved this Court and he was granted liberty to move the civil court. He submits that before the executing court the writ petitioners did not produce a copy of the final bill with all calculation and only in their written show cause reply was filed claiming that a fresh measurement was done on the basis of which certain amount was found as excess paid to the petitioner. He submits that first there was no material placed before the executing court in respect of the said claim and second that no fresh measurement was permitted in terms of the award.