Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present Misc. Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the PWD Contractor namely, Mr. Prahalad Rai Kedia, who executed a contract for strengthening of road from Udaipur to Ratanpur Stone No. 329 to 342 under the Agreement No. 8 for the year 1989 -90, Job No. 008/R.J./87/073. In the year 1990 -91, after completion of contract and payment of final bill, the contractor raised certain dispute with Public Works Department for payment of some additional amount for the works executed by the contractor in terms of the agreement between the parties and as per the terms of the agreement, the sole arbitrator namely, Shri Gulab Singh Bhandari, Executive Engineer, PWD Department was appointed to resolve the dispute, who by his award dated 25.02.1994 awarded a sum of Rs. 5,84,362/ - in favour of the contractor on the ground of additional lead (distance) required to be covered for bringing the ballast (Sratl) from Pipli Quarry whereas, the same was brought from some other quarries, as the Pipli Quarry was not worked for last many years and was not allowed to be operated by the Forest Department. The Contractor claimed Rs. 2,69,227/ - under this extra item. The contractor also claimed Rs. 1,02,427/ - on account of "spreading" of soil on the ground whereas the "compacting of soil" was the main item but the "spreading of soil" was not included in the main item and, therefore, for this extra item, the aforesaid amount was claimed. The contractor further claimed a sum of Rs. 99,600/ - towards escalation charges. The contractor also claimed 12% interest per annum on the aforesaid extra items. Thus the total Rs. 5,84,362/ - was awarded as per the claim of the Contractor. The said award was forwarded by the learned Arbitrator to the concerned Court of Additional District Judge, Udaipur for making it the "Rule of Court", as required under Sections 17 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the old law later on replaced by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) THE learned Court below of Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (Shri Shyam Lal Gupta, RHJS) refused to make the Award dated 25.02.1994 a "Rule of the Court" by the impugned judgment dated 16.08.1996 and being aggrieved by the same, the present misc. appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased contractor, in whose favour the award in question had been passed by the Arbitrator. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.L. Purohit with Mr. Shashank Joshi appearing for the appellants urged that the learned Court below could not have set aside the whole of the award in question without being satisfied with the conditions stipulated in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside of the award, which according to the learned counsel lie in a very narrow compass and, therefore, in the absence of such circumstances, the learned Trial Court has seriously erred in setting aside the award in question. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned Trial Court has further erred in refusing to make the award in question a "Rule of Court" and hence, the present misc. appeal filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased contractor deserves to be allowed. He also submitted that the exercise of the power by the Court below beyond a period of four months was contrary to Section 28 of the Act of 1940 and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.
(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Counsel Mr. Mukesh Dave supported the impugned order passed by the Court below and urged that the well reasoned order of the learned Additional District Judge does not require any interference by this Court and, therefore, the present misc. appeal of the contractor -claimants deserves to be dismissed.;