Decided on July 15,1981

KONDA REDDY N.S.C. Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal concerns with the right of the appellant to have his claim referred to arbitration for adjudication. The I Addl. Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore who tried the ma,tter as O. S. No. 173 of 1977, dismissed the appellant's application filed under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. THIS appeal is preferred against that order.
(2.) THE parties rested their case only on their pleadings and the terms of the agreement. THEy did not produce any oral evidence. We will give a brief summary of the facts avoiding as far as possible the controversial matters. The appellant was a railway contractor. He entered into an agreement with the respondents for execution of certain works including the work of "doubling of track between Renigunta and Balapalleearth work forming bank and cutting etc." earmarked between chainage 0 and 10,600 Reach-I. As per the terms of the agreement, the respondents were to point out the lands and places where work had to be carried out and supplies were required to be made. The respondents were further required to give the details of the materials required with the specifications and the quantities. They were also required to give the drawings of the works to be executed. It was only thereafter the appellant was required to commence the works entrusted to him. The respondents did not attend to those preliminary requirements. in time, and there was considerable delay on their part in performing their obligations. Consequently, the appellant had to wait for his turn to commence the execution of the works.
(3.) THE period prescribed under the agreement for completion of the works was, however, extended, and the appellant completed all the prescribed works on June 27, 1975. On July 1, 1975, he made a claim for additional payments at higher rates on various items of works executed by him. On September 10, 1975, he restricted the additional claim to Rs. four lakhs and odd. He did not, however, pursue that claim. He had a second thought over the matter. On October 31, 1975, he wrote a short letter informing the respondents that in order to develop good relationship with the administration, he was withdrawing the said additional claim.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.