- (1.) The appeal has been preferred by the above named appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dated 22nd November, 1990 whereby and whereunder the award of the learned sole Arbitrator has been made rule of the Court, and decree has been passed. The short fact of the case leading to bringing action by the appellant is summarized as follows:- The respondent above named was awarded contract for 60% of the total works of annual maintenance of road at residential area of the Haldia Dock Complex by the appellant. The appellant was successful tenderer for the entire tender works agreeing to execute the works at a sum of Rs. 8,83,362.12. But the same could not be completed within the time stipulated for various reasons. Accordingly extension of time was granted for completion of the same. The payment was made for the works done and the respondent is said to have signed the final bill of payment and "no claim certificate" was issued by the respondent. Thereafter the respondent demanded of the appellant for making payment of a sum of Rs. 3,91,052.35 on various heads. Obviously such payment was not made by the appellant, and hence dispute arose. In terms of the agreement the dispute was referred to Sole Arbitration of one Mr. D.P. Roy Chowdhury. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent naturally counter statement was also filed by the appellant to contest the claim made by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator.
(2.) In the statement of claim aforesaid aggregate amount of Rs. 3,25,768.37p on account of principal under various heads, and interest at the rate of 18.5% calculated from 1st June to 30th June, 1986 amounting to Rs. 65,283.98 p. thus aggregating to Rs. 3,91,052.35p. was made. Break up of the head of the claim are as follows:-
(3.) The defence taken that most of the claims are not admissible under the Special Condition of Contract or General Conditions of Contract. It was contended that the claim No. 1 was not permissible under Clause 7 of the Special Condition of Contract; Claim No. 2 is also prohibited under Clause 65 of General Condition of Contract; Claim No. 3 is not allowable under Clause 10 of the Special Condition of Contract; Claim No. 4 is also disallowable under Clauses 24, 25(a) and 26(a) of the General Condition of Contract; Claim No. 5 is prohibited by Clause 26(a) of General Condition of Contract; Claim No. 6 is not allowable under Clause 48(b) of General Condition of Contract; Claim No. 7 cannot be allowed under Clause 7 of the Special Condition of Contract; Claim No. 8 is hit by Clause 33 of the General Condition of Contract; Claim No. 9 is also the same position under Clause 65 as Claim No. 8 is; Claim No. 10 is also barred by Clause 65 of General Condition of Contract; Claim No. 11 being the amount of interest is prohibited under Clause 13(g) as quoted above.;