STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. TRILOK AND COMPANY
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Trilok And Company
Click here to view full judgement.
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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.