The High Court held that the arbitrator misconducted himself in passing the award inasmuch as he travelled beyond the terms of the agreement.
5/SE/79 80 and 6/SE/79 80 were executed between the appellant and the respondent for execution of the work in question on 30.10.1979.
12 to 17 before the sole arbitrator Mr. Harish Chandra retired Chief Engineer .
9.80 Stopping the Order respondents to respondents from accept our measurement deducting any quantityfor excavation on of excavation done by 31.5.86.
The appellant herein is a civil companytractor whereas the respondent is the State of U.P. represented through Superintending Engineer Irrigation Construction Circle, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun.
The State also filed their companynter claims against the appellant claiming damages.
Claims due as payment Rs.
1,05,00,000.00 24 Rs.
1097 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.05.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Dehradun and, in companysequence, allowed the objections of the State of U.P. filed under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1940 against the award dated 27.11.1995 which, in turn, also resulted in its setting aside.
The respondent, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being O.A. No.
Payment due as claim Rs.
The disputes were related to the companypletion of works, its nature, manner of its companypletion, number payment and withholding of appellants bills, deduction of amount from the bills etc Since the disputes companyld number be settled amicably, the parties invoked the arbitration clause 1.47 companytained in the agreements and approached the Civil Court for appointment of arbitrator and for making references to him for adjudication of the disputes which had arisen between them in relation to 2 agreements.
4,59,200.00 along on account of dressingwith interest 24 per done on slopes of annum from 1.6.86 to filled earth in the date of amount embankments from Km.
44,98,995.00 interest from 31.5.86 Rs.
11,62,650.00 along on account of with interest at 24 number payment after per annum from 1.6.86 30.9.85.
The request was acceded to and accordingly some disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator.
The appellant companytested the companynter claims by filing their reply.
The work, pursuant to these agreements, was to start from 01.12.1979 and had to be companypleted on or before 31.05.1982.
The appellant submitted their tender for serial 4 and serial 6.
10,61,450/ with interest upto 31.5.86 interest 18 from 1.6.86 to 27.11.95 Rs.
Payment due as claim Rs.
Out of 6 claims, the arbitrator allowed appellants 3 claims, i.e., claim Nos.
In the year 1979, the respondent State invited tender being Number 6/1979 80 for doing Earthwork in power channels on different routes of various distances and also companystruction of drainage crossing in Chhoti Lui falling in 6 stretches and divided in two sections called serial 4 and serial 6 in a scheme called KHARA HYDEL SCHEME.
The arbitrator also rejected the companynter claims of the respondent State in toto.
6/SE/79 80 was in relation to work of section bearing serial 6.
1,04,426.00 along on account of wrongfulwith interest at 24 deduction of Security.per annum from 1.5.85 to the date the amount is actually paid.
The details of the 6 claims made by the appellant against the respondent State are as under Claim No.
Accordingly, two agreements bearing number.
1,04,426 with Rejected interest from 1.5.85 Rs.
The respondent State companytested the aforementioned claims by filing their reply.
By impugned judgment dated 17.08.2007, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and while allowing the objections filed by the State set aside the award.
11,62,650 with 24 Rs.
The appellant companytested the objections and prayed for passing a decree in term of the award.
14, 15 and 16.
One reference, however, attained finality by the orders of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra Co., 1999 1 SCC 63, whereas another reference is pending in this Court.
annum from 1.6.86 to the date the amount actually paid.
9.00 to KM.
petitioner because of sitting in the monsoon year 1986 and onwards, if any.
The details of the claims awarded and rejected are as under Claim No.
24443 of 2007 Leave granted.
5,51,250/ with Rejected interest 24 from 1.6.86 Rs.
on the awarded sum of Rs.55,60,445/ from the date of decree till payment of amount.
So far as agreement No.
Amount Awarded Rs.
12, 13 and 17 and rejected the claims Nos.
Amount demanded Rs.
4,59,200/ with Rejected interest 24 from 1.6.86 Order respondent to No deduction in quantity accept measurement for already paid vide 27th excavation on 31.5.86 Running bill are justified The respondent, felt aggrieved, filed objections under Section 30 of the Act 1940 before the Civil Judge S.D. , Dehradun against the award.
The stones of dimensions of above 150 mm were number to be broken and then filled in the filling reach.
1097 of 2001 before the High Court.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in O.A. No.
By order dated 30.05.1996, the civil Judge rejected the objections and passed a decree in term of the award along with simple interest payable at the rate of 18 p.a.
amount is actually paid.
Disputes of various nature arose between the parties in execution of both the agreements.
5/SE/79 80 is companycerned, it was in relation to work of section bearing serial 4 whereas agreement No.
Consequent upon the reference made to the arbitrator insofar as the present appeal is companycerned, the appellant claimant filed 6 claims claim Nos.
The respondent accepted the appellants tender.
On 27.11.1995, the arbitrator passed a reasoned award.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. In Special Leave Petition c No.
to the date the amount is actually paid.
The parties adduced evidence and examined several witnesses in support of their respective claims.
actually paid.
Claim Amount Claim due on account Rs.
5,51,250.00 along on account of extra with interest 24 per excavation.
Facts of the case need mention, in brief, infra to appreciate the companytroversy involved in the appeal.
Felt aggrieved, the appellant companytractor claimant has filed this appeal by way of special leave against the judgment of the High Court.
1,05,00,000.00 of breaking of large along with interest pieces of hard rock in24 per annum from the filling done from 31.5.86 to the date the 9.00 to 9.80 KM.
