CHAIRMAN GUINDY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION COMPANY CHENNAI Vs. GURUMURTHY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrators insofar as it relates to Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 made by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor"). The particulars regarding the claim and the award are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_5564_TLMAD0_2011_1.html</FRM>

(2.) 1. The brief facts giving rise to the dispute as well as the passing of the award are as follows: The Contractor was awarded a contract by way of an agreement entered between the Employer and the Contractor on 25.6.2007 for Improvement, Widening and Strengthening of Existing Roads, Construction of storm water drains and cross masonry work inside Thiru Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy. The contract price, as per the agreement for the work, was Rs. 9,19,46,759/-. The date of signing of the agreement, as stated above, was 25.6.2007 and the date of commencing of work was 15.6.2007 and as per the terms of agreement, the period fixed for completion of the work was seven months, namely on or before 14.1.2008. The period of contract for completion of the work was extended up to 31.3.2008 and second extension was granted up to 30.6.2008. It is also stated that the Contractor purported to terminate the contract on the ground of breach by the Employer, but as the time was extended from 31.3.2008 to 30.6.2008, the Contractor continued the work and ultimately, the Employer has terminated the contract on 30.3.2009 on the ground of default stated to have been committed by the Contractor.

(3.) 1. The main contention pertains to the award granted in respect of revision of rates on the basis that the agreement does not provide a clause for revision of rates. It is contended that as per the clause in the agreement, the rate quoted by the bidder shall be fixed for the duration of contract and is not subjected to any adjustment on any account. Moreover, there is no application of price adjustment under the contract and therefore, the question of revision of rates as claimed by the Contractor is opposed to the terms of the contract and ought to have been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.