HANUMAN PRASAD AND BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated 15. 5. 2000 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which order the District Judge, Jaipur had set aside the award dated 18. 3. 1998 passed by the Arbitrator and had remanded the case to the Arbitrator for fresh decision, after hearing the counsel for the parties on each item, within the stipulated period of four months.

(2.) THE facts as stated in the impugned order are that one Shri K. D. Bali was appointed as Arbitrator who had given the award on 18. 3. 1998.

(3.) IT was held by the Court below that duration of the work period, the price of the material had increased or the salary of workers was increased by the Government and if such increase is more than 10% and in case the contractor was not responsible for any such delay, in such situation the Superintending Engineer had already passed the order that the contractor was entitled to get increase incorporated in the voucher and file the bill before the concerned Engineer. As per condition No. 19 (b), the Contractor was supposed to keep the accounts in this regard in register with complete details of the number of workers. The court had observed that the Arbitrator had not gone into this aspect and had awarded Rs. 5 lacs without there being any record and that he has not given the reasons or the material details. On the above-said facts and award of the Arbitrator was set aside which is being challenged in the present civil misc. appeal.