EXECUTIVE OFFICER DURGAPORE NOTIFIED AREA AUTHORITY CITY CENTRE Vs. EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
EXECUTIVE OFFICER DURGAPORE NOTIFIED AREA AUTHORITY CITY CENTRE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) DURGAPUR Notified Area Authority, the respondent in a proceeding under section 18 of the arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is the petitioner before us in this revisional application. The order impugned is the one dated march 8, 1982, passed by the learned subordinate Judge, Burdwan in Title suit No. 137 of 1982 allowing such an application filed by Messrs. Emergency construction (hereinafter referred to as the applicant ).
(2.) ON May 20, 1980, the applicant, entered into a contract in writing with the respondent for the construction of galleries with ancillary works for Kanu sidhu Stadium at City Centre Durgapur. Under the agreement the construction was to be completed within 9 months and the applicant is to be paid on bills submitted from time to time on works done. The estimated cost was more than 84 lakhs and the respondent was to provide some of the building materials. According to the applicant on the failure of the respondent to provide designs and building materials which they were to provide, there was no progress of work and the applicant was constrained to write to them that the applicant would be forced to stop their work unable to hold on idle labour all the time beyond schedule. Thereupon, the respondent agreed to refer the matter to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties and also appointed the Civil Engineer (Plant construction) D. S. P. to be the arbitrator. The respondent on the representation that the award of the arbitrator would be final requested the applicant not to stop the work of construction but keep it going.
Thus the dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration and the arbitrator made an award. He awarded a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the applicant for the due fulfilment of constratual obligation and completion of works the said sum being paid in proportion to the work completed. He further directed the applicant to complete the construction by 31. 3. 83 and the respondent was directed to arrange and issue structural steel plus a normal percentage to cover their overhead to enable the contractor to plan and organise the structural work with diligence and speed. The award was made on July 1, 1982, and was filed in court on July 29, 1982. The respondent appeared on service of notice of filing of the award and on September 24, 1982, filed an objection under section 30 praying for setting aside the award. The applicants in their turn not only filed an objection to. the said objection under section 30 but in their turn filed an application under section 18 of the Arbitration Act for an order directing the respondent to deposit the awarded amount in court with liberty to the applicant to withdraw the same on furnishing security.
(3.) SUBSTANCE of the case made out by the applicant in this application is that the tender value of the contract had gone up abnormally in view of the fact that it could not be completed within time due to failure on the part of the respondent to provide for materials and designs and drawings as per stipulation. In the result the resources of the applicant had Keen totally consumed and they were left with no fund to proceed further with the work even if the respondent supplied the materials, designs and drawings. It is further alleged that the award was made practically on consent and the respondent solely with the object of delaying and defeating the claim of the applicant had filed the objection on false and frivolous grounds. It is further said that the respondent was trying to delay the payment solely for the purpose of throwing out the applicant from further execution and completion of the work. This application was strongly contested by the respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.