Decided on July 17,2007

Trilok And Company Respondents


P.C.VERMA, J. - (1.)APPEAL No. 265 of 2004 has been preferred under Section 39 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) by the appellant/State against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court -II, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 115/1998, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed. However, the court below modified the rate of pendente lite interest from 10 per cent per annum to 6 per cent per annum and cost of litigation was also modified from Rs. 80,000/ - to Rs. 1,000/ -.
(2.)APPEAL No. 62 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant M/s Trilok Chand Gupta & Co. under Section 39 of the Act against the same order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 115/1998 and Misc. Case No. 96/1998, whereby the arbitral award was modified and rate of interest as well as the cost of litigation was reduced.
The facts and controversy involved in both these appeals are same and inter -related, hence they are being decided vide this common order. We will refer to the facts in appeal no. 265 of 2004 for brevity.

(3.)FACTS , in brief, as set up by the appellant/State are that respondent M/s Trilok Chand Gupta & Co. is a registered partnership firm. A tender for construction of civil works of Intake and Penstock for Chilla Power House was invited and the appellants tender for the said work having been accepted, an agreement number 17/SE/76 -77 was arrived at between the respondent firm and the State on 22.3.1977. The period stipulated for the completion of work was 18 months from the date of start of the work i.e. 28.3.1977. The execution of contract work amongst other items involved excavation, RCC work and shuttering. It appears that the respondent firm was required to do the aforesaid works in excess of what was earlier agreed upon, for which it claimed extra payment. When the department rejected the claim for extra payment, the respondent firm tried to prevail upon the opposite party to refer the matter for arbitration as per agreement and when it failed in its efforts to get the matter referred for arbitration, the respondent firm took recourse to Section 20 of the Act and filed an application before the Civil Judge, Roorkee. While the application of the respondent firm was pending before the said court, the appellant/State approached the Legal Remembrancer to the State of U.P. for arbitration in the matter and Sri P.K. Sareen was appointed as the Arbitrator. Consequent upon the transfer of Sri P.K. Sareen, Sri Y.R. Tripathi was appointed as sole Arbitrator in the matter.

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