STATE OF RAJ Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the order dated 22/7/1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Banswara making Rule of Court the arbitration award dated 14/12/1997 (in SB CMA No.542/99 & 543/99) and 6/3/1998 (in SB CMA No.545/99) passed in favour of the claimant contractor.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, Mr. L.K.Purohit submitted that the learned court below has erred in making the arbitration award as Rule of Court without considering any of the objections raised by the appellant State before the Arbitrator as well as the learned court below. He submitted that under the contract awarded to the claimant contractor for undertaking certain civil works in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara, since the contractor failed to complete the work assigned to him, the appellant State had to invoke risk and cost clause (clause No. (2) & (3) of the contract) and got the said work completed from other contractor. He also drew the attention of the Court towards page 5 of the impugned order dated 22/4/1999, where the learned court below gave finding in favour of the respondent applicantcontractor that the State cannot by itself impose penalty and recovery damages from the applicant contractor for breach of contract without getting the same approved from the competent court or independent authority. He submitted that this was a clear misconception of law with the learned court below as under the contract in question State, even though party to the contract, has the power to impose penalty and recover damages in case the contractor failed to undertake and complete the work in question within the stipulated time. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He also submitted that the learned court below while making the arbitration award as Rule of Court has awarded further interest from the date of publication of award to the date of decree on the awarded sum, which is illegal and unsustainable and thus undue benefit has been conferred on the contractor while making the award as Rule of Court. This in his submission is non-application of mind by the learned court below and matter, therefore, deserves to be remanded back to the learned court below.