STATE Vs. JITENDRA G PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. appeal U/s.39 of Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the appellant State claiming the following reliefs:-

(2.) The dispute between the parties was regarding the claim of certain items for the construction of B.R. II R.D. 1860 Meter to R.D. 2100 Meter at Power House No. II, Lilwani, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara. The work under contract No. 62/1987-1988 was to be executed between 3.3.1988 to 2.12.1988 and thereafter, the contractor was given extension of 49 days i.e. upto 20.1.1989. The running bills were submitted by the contractor as per the GSR. However, on being not satisfied, the contractor submitted a claim for Rs. 12,92,000/- on 5.5.1989 before the learned District Judge, Banswara seeking appointment of arbitrator. Sole arbitrator was appointed and out of 12 claimed items, sole arbitrator decided claims Nos. 1 to 5 and 12 only and vide award dated 9.6.1997, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,87,700/- as the principal claimed amount with interest. The appellants herein raised objections before the learned Court below but the learned Court below upheld the award vide judgment dated 21.4.1999, which have been challenged by the appellants before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has demonstrated from the record that each running bill at the time of award was signed and endorsed by the contractor without any objection and while the last bill was signed in March, 1989, the contractor made an endorsement on the bill that it was sufficient for full and final settlement of all dues. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that once on 21.1.1989 after completing all work and in March, 1989, the contractor himself has recorded that his dues have been fully and finally settled, then it was bound by estopple to say that any of the dues remained unpaid. Learned counsel for the appellants has further shown the objection petition filed before the learned Court below so as to demonstrate that the issue of no dues on the last working day was very much taken before the learned Court below. The relevant portion of the objection petition reads as follows:-