RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. Vs. FIVE STAR BUILDERS & CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTER comes up on second stay petition but with the consent of both the parties, appeal itself is heard finally at this stage and disposed of by this judgment. Appalled by the order dt. 4.3.2013, the appellants have laid this appeal under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act of 1996) By the order impugned, learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur has rejected the application of the appellants under Sec. 34 of the Act of 1996 by declining to interfere with the arbitral award dt. 21.4.2010.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that State Government sanctioned the work for construction of flow portion of RD 235 to 3501 M of Chiklawas Irrigation Project by its order dt. 7.3.1994 for a sum of Rs. 3,32,15,276/ - in favour of appellant -Corporation and in this respect Work Order was issued and requisite agreement was also executed. Pursuant to the Work Order, appellants issued a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, 'NIT') in which respondent also participated and after acceptance of its tender. Work Order No. 10/97 dt. 2.5.1994 was issued for a sum of Rs. 1,79,52,393.09. The aforesaid work was allotted to the respondent on the same terms and conditions, which were agreed between the appellants and the Irrigation Department. In the Work Order, the date of commencement of the work was mentioned as 15.5.1994 and deadline for its completion was shown as 14.11.1995. However, in fact, the work was completed on 18.6.1997. After completion of the work, a dispute cropped up between the parties and eventually by judicial intervention, at the behest of respondent, this Court, while exercising powers under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1996, appointed Arbitrator vide order dt. 5.5.2005 while deciding S.B. Civil Arbitration Application No. 42/2004. The respondent contractor submitted its claim before the sole Arbitrator worth Rs. 1,53,29,794.18, while dividing it in 13 parts. The details about 13 claims of the respondent are as under: - -

(3.) RESPONDING to the claim petition submitted by the respondent -contractor, appellants filed a reply. In the return, respondent has raised a preliminary objection that entire work relates to the Irrigation Department, and therefore, without impleadment of Irrigation Department, claim cannot be processed. In the reply, it was also pleaded that delay in completion of work is directly attributable to the Irrigation Department and time was extended by Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department for completion of work, therefore, detailed reply in this behalf can be by filed by the Irrigation Department. The sole Arbitrator framed in all 18 points for determination between the rival parties and after completion of evidence passed; Award on 21.4.2010 favouring the respondent -contractor. The sole Arbitrator passed the award following terms: - -