UNION OF INDIA Vs. V PUNDARIKAKSHUDU AND SONS
LAWS(SC)-2003-9-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
September 09,2003
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
V. PUNDARIKAKSHUDU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHEODAN SINGH VS. DARYAO KUNWAR [REFERRED]K P POULOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
SUDARSAN TRADING CO VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [REFERRED]
DANDASI SAHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
PREMIER TYRES LIMITED VS. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JAIN ASSOCIATES [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-425] [REFERRED TO]BHANU CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORP LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-224] [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VS. PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING COMPANY [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-188] [REFERRED TO]
TIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS AND PAINTS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-231] [REFERRED]
B R ARORA & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-557] [REFERRED]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. R.C.C.L. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-11-203] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA BHAGWANTRAO PATIL VS. SHYAM PUKHRAJ ASOPA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
M D ARMY WELRARE HOUSING ORGANISATION VS. SUMANGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT LTD. VS. SAMTEL DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
TONGANAGAON TEA CO. PVT. LTD. VS. M/S ASSOCIATED TEA INDUSTRIES. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAHMATULLAH VS. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-170] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. VS. INSULATORS AND ELECTRICALS COMPANY [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-296] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHIRAJA ELECTRICALS VS. RITES [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANGHU CHAKRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KAY BEE ALUMS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-10-74] [REFERRED TO]
M S J CONSTRUCTION P LTD VS. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
HUSENBI VS. SHAIKLABI [LAWS(KAR)-2024-7-126] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR DUGAR VS. BIJOY KUMAR LOYALKA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-558] [REFERRED TO]
JU G ENGINEERS P LTD VS. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPN LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
LLOYD INSULATIONS (INDIA) VS. AGM BMD DIVISION [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-204] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN SERVICES [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. B. Sinha, J. -
(1.)The appellant and the first respondent herein entered into a contract for construction of an auditorium complex at Willington Nilgiris for a sum of Rs. 64,79,982.95. The work commenced on 16-3-1979 and was to be completed on 15-3-1981. However, there had been amendment to the said agreement owing to increase in the scope of work. An extra time of six months was also given to the Contractor in terms of the said amendment. The time for completion of the contract was extended from 16-9-1981 to 30-6-1982 and 1-7-1982 to 31-12-1982. The contract amount was also increased, because of the aforementioned amendment therein owing to increase in the scope of work, to Rs. 85.10 lakhs. Although the period of contract was over and the appellant did not grant any further extension, the same was purportedly terminated by the appellant herein on 28-2-1983, i.e., after the due date for completion of work, namely, 31-12-1982. Disputes and differences having arisen, the arbitration agreement was invoked by the respondent No. 1 and the claims and counter-claims of the parties were referred to one Brigadier M. M. L. Sharma who was appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief of the appellant. Before the Arbitrator the first respondent submitted a claim for a total sum of Rs. 23,59,534.72 comprising 23 claims whereas the claim of the appellant herein amounted to Rs. 90,58, 167.42 comprising 8 claims.
(2.)The sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 14,31,463/- in favour of the first respondent and a sum of Rs. 33,95,000/- in favour of the appellant herein. The award was filed in the District Court of Nilgiris.
(3.)Original Petition No. 29 of 1986 was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein under Sections 15, 16, 30 and 32 of the Arbitration Act praying to vary, modify or set aside to claim No. 1 under B Claim of the Government in Award dated 6-2-1986 and confirm the award in Claim q of the Contractor made including the interest and decree in favour of the petitioner or in the alternative to set aside the award dated 6-2-1986.
(2.)The sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 14,31,463/- in favour of the first respondent and a sum of Rs. 33,95,000/- in favour of the appellant herein. The award was filed in the District Court of Nilgiris.
(3.)Original Petition No. 29 of 1986 was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein under Sections 15, 16, 30 and 32 of the Arbitration Act praying to vary, modify or set aside to claim No. 1 under B Claim of the Government in Award dated 6-2-1986 and confirm the award in Claim q of the Contractor made including the interest and decree in favour of the petitioner or in the alternative to set aside the award dated 6-2-1986.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.