H.K.Sema, J. - (1.) THE validity and legality of the judgment dated 31.10.2002 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in OSA. No. 27/1995 and 25/1996 is assailed in these appeals.
(2.) THE appellant was awarded two contracts - the first for construction of LRMR Aircraft Hangar and Airtech Hangar and connected works; and the second for construction of roads and allied works at NAS Arakonam. In respect of the two contracts, hereinafter referred to as the Hangar Contract and Road Contract, the tenders submitted by appellant were accepted on 10.10.1988 and 3/5.1.1989 respectively. THE necessary agreements were executed between the parties. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of those contracts and the matter was referred to Arbitration. THE Arbitrator after examining the oral and documentary evidence made his Awards dated 20.7.1993 and 5.3.1994. Applications were filed before the learned Single Judge by the respondent herein for setting aside the Awards. THE learned Single Judge by orders dated 24.8.1994 and 22.9.1995 rejected the applications and in each case made a rule of the court in terms of the award. Being aggrieved the respondent filed OSA Nos. 27/1995 and 25/1996, which were partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, the present appeals by the claimant contractor. It may not be necessary for us to refer to the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeals as the substantial question of law posed requires reference to limited facts. Suffice it to say that awards of the learned Arbitrator related to claims under several heads. The controversy in these appeals relate to award in respect of item no. 24 in the Hangar contract and items 13 to 16 in respect of the road contract. The particulars thereof are extracted below:Pravin Yashank Adhyaru JUDGEMENT_542_TLPRE0_2006Html1.htm In regard to Hangar Contract, undisputedly, the contract work had to be completed in two phases, the first phase by 31.10.1989 and the second phase by 30.4.1990. However, the contract work could not be completed within the stipulated time, partly due to the default on the part of respondent. It is also undisputed that on the request of the contractor, the employer gave several extensions - by a letter dated 28.2.1990 the period of completion of work was extended up to 30.6.1990; by a letter dated 10.5.1991 it was extended up to 31.5.1991; by a letter dated 27.8.1991 it was extended up to 30.9.1991; by a letter dated 23.1.1992 the time was extended up to 15.4.1992; by a letter dated 15.5.1992 it was extended up to 28.5.1992 and by a letter dated 4.6.1992, it was further extended up to 22.6.1992. The contract was subsequently terminated by the employer on 1.7.1992.
(3.) IN respect of the road contract, the date of commencement of work was 3.1.1989. The due date of completion was 2.11.1990 (21 months). The employer granted extensions from time to time on the request of the contractor up to 31.5.1992. Subsequently, the contract was terminated by the employer on 14.7.1992. The basis of the disputed claims is that the execution of work was delayed on account of breaches on the part of the employer and the employer is liable to compensate the contractor for all losses and extra cost on account of such delay and extended execution.;