STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BIHARILAL PADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of Agreement No. F 2-53 of 1979-80 dated 24/5/1979, dispute raised by the contractor were referred to the Sole Arbitrator who gave award for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,87,318.75 paise, as principal amount, and Rs. 1,12,391.00 as interest @ 18 per cent per annum, i.e. total sum of Rs. 2,99,709.75 paise to the contractor. The said award was made Rule of the Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.3.1992. The Court below also granted interest pendente lite and future till realisation @ 6 per cent annum.

(2.) The contractor had made altogether 19 items of claims to the tune of Rs. 4,73,653.99 paise. The aforesaid claims related to refund of security deposits, refund of amount deducted from on account bills, value of moorrum not paid, value of gravel washed away during monsoon in 1991, consolidation of moorrum and stone broken materials at quarry, labour advance, carriage of stone from Group-II to Group-I, price escalation for labour and materials, estimated profit on balance work, expenditure of idle labourers, extra travelling, fooding and lodging, salaries of idle staff, value of carriage of stone not mentioned in the agreement, loss and damages for devaluation etc and interest @ 18 per cent per annum from 12.3.1983 to 11.7.1986. The Arbitrator gave an unreasoned award.

(3.) One of the objections raised under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was that the Arbitrator did not consider the agreement and his failure to do so amounted to misconduct on his part. The measurement book, copies of running bills, final bill and several other letters from the department, including counter claim of the defendants regarding excess payment of Rs. 23,359.00 to the plaintiff were also not looked into by the Arbitrator, while passing the impugned award. It was also not clear from the award as to which of the items of claims were allowed and which were rejected. The grant of interest for the period of 12.3.1983 to 11.7.1986 as well as interest pendente lite and future was contrary to law and against the terms of agreement.