STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. R V RAYANIM
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on January 15,1990

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
R.V.RAYANIM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUDANHAN TRADING CO. V. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [RELIED ON]
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND VS. CHOKHAMAL CONTRACTORS [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

M/S. NATIONAL CORPORATION LTD VS. M/S. R.S. AVTAR SINGH & CO [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A D CHAKRABORTY AND CO [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
R S AVTAR SINGH VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPN LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
H.K.SAREEN VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-1996-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1991-7-53] [RELIED ON]
CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. GOURANGA LAL CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1991-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN MADAN VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
MARKFED VANASPATI AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
M/S HARISH CHANDRA & COMPANY VS. STATE OF U.P. THR. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
ISPAT ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2001-7-58] [REFERRED]
GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. NANDLAL ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2001-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ASHISH B GANDHI [LAWS(GJH)-1992-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH DHAN PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1991-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. D.KHOSLA AND COMPANY [LAWS(J&K)-2022-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
T N ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. BRIDGE TUNNEL CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(SC)-1997-2-13] [RELIED ON]
TARAPORE AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1994-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VS. GAYATRI ENGINEERS COMPANY [LAWS(APH)-1990-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAM NARAIN MADAN [LAWS(HPH)-1997-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
TATA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
TASHKENT STONE CRASHERS, MARANDA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H P. VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. [LAWS(HPH)-1993-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. PUNE HELIUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2000-2-86] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BATLIBOI ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. GHANEKAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1996-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LUCKNOW VS. OM METALS AND MINERALS PVT LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1994-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
AAKAR CONSTRUCTION VS. NATIONAL BULDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2020-5-474] [REFERRED TO]
SUDAM KARAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
V G GEORGE VS. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1999-4-142] [RELIED ON]
Tarapore and Co. VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1994-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. N SIVA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1993-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
GEOJIT BNP PARIBAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. S. GOMATHINAYAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-219] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VS. M PARAMASIVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI DAYAL SALES PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION CO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-203] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ANIMESH RAY [LAWS(CAL)-1995-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. EASTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [LAWS(PAT)-1991-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES [LAWS(CAL)-1999-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BUDHLANI ENGINEERING PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2008-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION VS. R S AVTAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
O N G C LTD VS. SURYA PAINTS and OIL WORKS [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-143] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI - (1.)THE respondent R. V. Rayanim was, at all material times, a Class I contractor who had entered into an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh for formation of earth dam in gorge portion from chainage 3360 to 3380-M of Raiwada Reservoir Project near Devarapalli village, Chodavaram Taluk, Distt. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid agreement. A reference was made to the arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. THE respondent made eleven claims claiming various amounts, particulars whereof have been set out by the arbitrator as follows : 433.htm
(2.)THE arbitrator gave a non-speaking award dated 27/07/1985 in favour of the respondent, amounting to Rs. 19.39 lakhs, wherein he stated as follows :-
"Claim II has been withdrawn by the petitioner himself on the ground it was subsequently refunded by the respondents. On the balance claims (1 and 111 to X) according to my assessment, I award a consolidated amount of Rs. 19.39 lakhs to the extent of the claims judged admissible. THE respondents shall pay Rs. Ninteen lakhs and thirty nine thousands to the petitioner."

It is, therefore, apparent that claim No. II as mentioned above, had been withdrawn. On the balance claims I and III the arbitrator had awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 19.39 lakhs 'to the extent of the -claims judged admissible'. The respondent filed a proceeding before the Court to make the award rule of the Court. The petitioner preferred an application for setting aside the award. By a common judgment dated 21/04/1986, the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition of the petitioners for setting aside the award and allowed the judgment in terms of the award. The petitioner preferred an appeal and a civil review petition before the High Court of Hyderabad. By a judgment dated 16/03/1988 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision of the petitioner. It held that the nonspeaking award of the arbitrator was not liable to be set aside by the Court.

(3.)THE petitioner has preferred this special leave petition challenging the said decision of the High Court. THE main contention which was sought to be urged in this case was that the award was a non-speaking award and, as such, was bad. On this ground, on or about 9/12/1988 this Court directed that the matter should be taken up along with civil appeal Nos. 5645 and. 5645A of 1986 pending before a larger bench. At that time, the question was pending consideration by the Constitution Bench of this Court. This Court further directed on 9/12/1988 that the entire amount of award, if not deposited in the trial Court, should be de posited in the trial Court within two months from that date, and upon the deposit being made the respondent will be at liberty to withdraw 50 Per Cent of the amount which has not been withdrawn on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It was further recorded that 50 Per Cent had already been with - drawn.
;


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