EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. ANIL SHARMA, PROPRIETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This Arbitration Appeal invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred against the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Koderma in Arbitration Case No.01 of 2014 registered upon an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with a prayer for setting aside the final arbitral award dated 16.02.2014 passed by the arbitral tribunal.

(3.) The brief fact of the case is that the claimant-respondent was awarded work by the appellant-department for improvement of roads, construction of drains and embankments of road etc. An agreement was entered into between the parties in this respect. The work allotted was to be completed within nine months. It is the contention of the claimant that the progress of the work used to be interrupted because of land dispute, seasonal crops, heavy rain and lack of labourers. Because of the disturbances in the smooth progress of work, the work allotted was not likely to be completed within the stipulated period and the same was within the knowledge of the representatives of the appellant-department who were deputed at the work site to supervise the work. Upon the request of the claimant-respondent and on the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer of the appellant-department, extension of time of completion of the said work was allowed by the appellant-department. The claimant-respondent investing his own money, purchased required bitumen and completed the work allotted to him within the extended period. Though it is admitted by both the parties that the measurement of the work done by the claimant was taken and recorded in the measurement book by the concerned officer of the appellant-department but the appellant-department did not issue the completion certificate and did not release the payment on the basis of the final bills raised by the claimant-respondent. The claimant-respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court and the designated bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2011 appointed the sole arbitrator for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The appellant-department admitted before the arbitral tribunal that the work was interrupted on account of land dispute, seasonal crops, local hindrance, heavy rain and lack of labourers.