SHYAMA CHARAN AGARWAL AND SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
July 15,2002
SHYAMA CHARAN AGARWALA AND SONS,UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA,SHYAMA CHARAN AGARWALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHAMPSEY BHARA AND CO. V. JIVRAJ BALLOO SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. LTD. [REFERRED]N CHELLAPPAN VS. SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED]
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED VS. C RAJASEKHAR RAO [REFERRED]
COIMBATORE DISTRICT PODU THOZILLAR SAMGAM P F PRESENTED VS. BALASUBRAMANIA FOUNDRY:BALASUBRAMANTA FOUNDRY [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. JAGAN NATH ASHOK KUMAR [REFERRED]
SUDARSAN TRADING CO VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [REFERRED]
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. B N AGARWALLA [REFERRED]
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED VS. BALASORE TECHNICAL SCHOOL [REFERRED]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. J C BUDHARAJA GOVERNMENT AND MINING CONTRACTOR [REFERRED]
INDU ENGINEERING AND TEXTILES LIMITED VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF GOA VS. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT VERSUS VAIKUNTH J NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2003-11-121] [REFERRED]P.C. ROY & CO. INDIA PRIAVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
USHA DRAGER PVT. LTD VS. DRAGERWERK AG [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-240] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. VIDEOCON POWER LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-252] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VS. SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2006-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
K.T. CONSTRUCTION (I) LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
AKM CONSTRUCTION & ENGG. COMPANY VS. COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER WRO P W D MADURAI REGION VS. CHANDAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PARTNERSHIP FIRM [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
M D ARMY WELRARE HOUSING ORGANISATION VS. SUMANGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
JAI INDER PAL SINGH VS. JASVINDER SINGH NARULA [LAWS(HPH)-2013-9-81] [REFERRED]
RAJ TELEVISION NETWORK LTD. VS. THAICOM PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMATA KRISHNA KUMARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2024-1-110] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. FORTPOINT AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM SAHANI AND SONS VS. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ENGINEERING CO.LTD. VS. M/S. S.B.P. & CO. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
ITE INDIA (P) LTD. VS. MUKESH SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-402] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. VS. B.T. PATIL & SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD VS. COASTAL MECHANICAL & ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES [LAWS(ORI)-2021-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD VS. MSTC LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SALT REFINERIES LTD VS. COMPANIA NAVIERA SODNOC [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
WEST COAST INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD [LAWS(KER)-2006-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. SATYA PRAKASH BUILDERS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-196] [REFERRED TO]
ASSIGNIA-VIL JV VS. RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
PURE HELIUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-87] [REFFERED]
G RAMCHANDRA REDDY AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-243] [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2002-11-72] [REFERRED]
SATINDERPAL SINGH ANAND VS. SHARANPAL BALMUKUND CHOPRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. -
(1.)LEAVE is granted in all the SLPs.
(2.)THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 29/02/2000. Indeed both the parties to the dispute have filed appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court.
M/s. Shyama Charana Agarwala and Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') were entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for 80MCPOs/CPOs/80Pos and 16 sailors at Goa Naval Area, Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, by the Union of India (for short 'the UOI') through the Chief Engineer (Navy), Cochin Naval Base under the agreement No. CEC-/GOA-12 of 1990-91. The work order was placed vide letter No. 8319/43/E-8, dated 20-7-1990 for Rs. 2,62,44,057-94. The date of commencement of the work was 16-8-1990 and the work was to be completed by 15-11-1991.
The same contractor by another agreement No. CEC-/GOA/40 of 1991-92 was entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for MCOs/CPOs and JCOs at Goa. The work order was placed vide letter No. 8305/88/E-8, dated 5-2-1992. The date of commencement of the work was 24-2-1992 and the work was to be completed by 23-2-1994.
(3.)BEFORE the work could be completed certain differences/disputes arose between the parties. Under clause (70) of the General Conditions of the Contract all disputes [(other than those for which the decision of the CWE (Commander Works Engineer) or any other person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding)] shall, after written notice by either party to the contract to the other of them, be referred to sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the Authority mentioned in the tender document. In the said clause it was further provided that unless both the parties agree in writing, such reference shall not take place until and unless after completion or alleged completion of the work or termination or determination of the contract under Conditions 5, 56 and 57 thereof. The contractor gave notice for appointment of arbitrator specifying the items of dispute for adjudication. The UOI agreed for appointment of arbitrator. Accordingly Shri M. V. S. Rao, Chief Engineer (Air Force), Bangalore was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator vide the Engineer-in-Chief's letter dated 30/12/1993. The nature of disputes raised in both the cases are similar though the amounts claimed against them differ. The disputes referred for arbitration were enumerated at Appendix 'A' to the said letter. In the contract agreement No. CEC-/GOA-12/1990-91 the items of claim were as follows :JUDGEMENT_444_JT5_2002Html1.htm
In respect of the contract agreement No. CEC-/GOA/40/1991-92 the following claims were made by the contractor :JUDGEMENT_444_JT5_2002Html2.htm
(2.)THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 29/02/2000. Indeed both the parties to the dispute have filed appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court.
M/s. Shyama Charana Agarwala and Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') were entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for 80MCPOs/CPOs/80Pos and 16 sailors at Goa Naval Area, Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, by the Union of India (for short 'the UOI') through the Chief Engineer (Navy), Cochin Naval Base under the agreement No. CEC-/GOA-12 of 1990-91. The work order was placed vide letter No. 8319/43/E-8, dated 20-7-1990 for Rs. 2,62,44,057-94. The date of commencement of the work was 16-8-1990 and the work was to be completed by 15-11-1991.
The same contractor by another agreement No. CEC-/GOA/40 of 1991-92 was entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for MCOs/CPOs and JCOs at Goa. The work order was placed vide letter No. 8305/88/E-8, dated 5-2-1992. The date of commencement of the work was 24-2-1992 and the work was to be completed by 23-2-1994.
(3.)BEFORE the work could be completed certain differences/disputes arose between the parties. Under clause (70) of the General Conditions of the Contract all disputes [(other than those for which the decision of the CWE (Commander Works Engineer) or any other person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding)] shall, after written notice by either party to the contract to the other of them, be referred to sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the Authority mentioned in the tender document. In the said clause it was further provided that unless both the parties agree in writing, such reference shall not take place until and unless after completion or alleged completion of the work or termination or determination of the contract under Conditions 5, 56 and 57 thereof. The contractor gave notice for appointment of arbitrator specifying the items of dispute for adjudication. The UOI agreed for appointment of arbitrator. Accordingly Shri M. V. S. Rao, Chief Engineer (Air Force), Bangalore was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator vide the Engineer-in-Chief's letter dated 30/12/1993. The nature of disputes raised in both the cases are similar though the amounts claimed against them differ. The disputes referred for arbitration were enumerated at Appendix 'A' to the said letter. In the contract agreement No. CEC-/GOA-12/1990-91 the items of claim were as follows :
In respect of the contract agreement No. CEC-/GOA/40/1991-92 the following claims were made by the contractor :
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.