GYAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners -applicants have preferred this revision petition u/s 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short "the Act") against the award dated 30.10.1999 passed by Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (in short "Tribunal), in Reference Case No. 15/ 97, directing the applicants to pay Rs.43,738.10 p. along with the sum of interest Rs.1,751/ - till filing the reference to respondent along with the subsequent interest of 12% per annum on the aforesaid principal amount.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that late Charan Singh, the predecessor of the applicants, was allotted some development work of Rampura Dam on accepting his tender for which an agreement No.1/DL, of 1980 -81 dated 11.4.1980 was executed between said Charan Singh and respondent. On arising of some dispute, as per procedure late Charan Singh filed a reference case No.44/87 in which the award of Rs.88,495.25 p. was passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.4.1989. The same was challenged by the respondent in Civil Revision No.594/89 before this Court but by dismissing such revision the aforesaid award was affirmed vide order dated 24.4.1996.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 24.4.1996, the respondent filed a reference petition No.15/1997 on 17.3.1997 before the Tribunal, claiming the aforesaid overpayment Rs.43,738.10 p. along -with interest. The same was replied on behalf of the applicant saying that the payment was made in consideration for the work carried out by their predecessor. It was also pleaded that such claim was not made in the earlier case either by counter claim or an independent quantified claim. Such dispute was never raised during pendency of the earlier reference in the Tribunal but after passing the said award on dated 19.4.1989 such plea was raised for the first time in the said Civil Revision No.594/89 on filing the same on 6.12.1989. Hence in any case, the non -applicant respondent came to know about the impugned subject matter of dispute on 6.12.1989 in -spite it the impugned reference has not been initiated within limitation prescribed under the Act and prayed for dismissal of the reference.