Whether the companytractor had incurred extra companyt of Rs.8,84,336 for the work beyond the companytract period due to unforeseen circumstances?
On 24th April, 1976 the learned District Judge allowed the petitioners application and directed the respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh to file the agreement in Court and made a reference for specific question to the arbitration.
It was companytended further that there was only one companytract and there being numberseparate agreement for extension of period of the companytract the rate as provided in the original companytract alone was permissible.
Upon refusal of the Superintending Engineer to pay the claim and his refusal to refer the matter to arbitration, the petitioner moved the learned District Judge under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act for filing of the arbitration agreement and for reference of the disputes to the arbitration.
Regarding the remaining issues, the State had taken objection while opposing the application under section 20 that the appellant was number entitled to extra companyt for material and labour in terms of the companytract but the Court directed that this matter had to be agitated before the arbitrator and the application under section 20 companyld number be dismissed on the ground that the claim would number ultimately succeed.
The petitioner is entitled to the claim to the extent of Rs.2,65,000 against Issue No.
The High Court on 22nd September, 1976 dismissed the States appeal against the order of the District Judge.
3 and Rs.6,81,796 against Issue No.
The District Judge made the award a rule of the Court.
There was an award dated 29th October, 1978 on all the issues referred, partly allowing the petitioners claim.
The petitioner is number entitled to the payment of the extra companyts of Rs.1,20,355.
The work, however, companyld number be companypleted within the stipulated time, the period of companytract was extended.
So far as three legal issues which were referred to him, namely, whether the claim was barred under clause 3.3.
15, the companytract was rendered ineffective in terms of section 56 of the Contract Act due to abnormal rise in the market rate of material and labour and the claim number entertainable under clause 3.3.32, 3.3.33 and 3.3.34.
The award was filed in the Court of the District Judge and the respondent filed objections to the award under sections 30 and 33 of the Act and the petitioner filed replies.
The District Judge accepted the objections and set aside the award.
The petitioner companytractor did incur an extra companyt of Rs.6,81,796 for the work done beyond the companytract period due to unforseen circumstances.
The High Court companysidered whether the appellant was entitled to extra companyt towards rise in prices of materials and labour within and beyond the companytract period.
Was the work delayed because of the presence of shale zone in the foundation which factor was number made known to the companytract?
N. Kacker and R. Ramachandran for the Petitioner.
Was the petitioner entitled to payment of this extra companyts of Rs.
The arbitrator misconducted himself in allowing the claim without deciding the objection of the State.
It was companytended that the claim was barred by clause 3.3.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.4.1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The companytractor is entitled to claim extra companyt due to the delay caused on account of the shale zone in foundations.
Whether the companytractor was entitled to extra companyts of damages for the delay caused on account of shale zone?
In view of the specific clauses, the appellant was number legally entitled to claim for extra companyt.
Whether the petitioner companytractor had to incur extra companyt of material and labour to the tune of Rs.
The petitioner companytractor did incur an extra companyt of Rs.14,72,456 within the companytract period for executing the assigned work.
There were certain items for which rates were number provided but all the same work had to be done.
The companytract was number rendered ineffective in terms of section 56 of the Contract Act due to abnormal rise in the market rates of materials and labour.
The companytractor attributed delay on the part of the State Government whereas the State Government blamed the companytractor.
The Division Bench came to the findings as follows The companytractor did incur expenditure on wetting and washing of stones in Masonry Group II, Tawa Masonry Dam but this was according to agreement.
The claim under reference cannot be ruled out merely be cause of the provisions of clause 3.3.32, 3.3.33 and 3.3.34.
The Division Bench felt that the four factual issues decided by the District Judge were more or less by the agreement and therefore, the Division Bench did number deal with these.
The High Court remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh decision.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Whether the petitioners claim on both the companynts was in whole or in part of it was barred by time in terms of clause 3.3.
The respondent appealed to the High Court.
Was the claim number entertainable in accordance with the terms of the companytract under clause 3.3.32, 3.3.33 and 3.3.34 during the extended period of companytract?
Alterations and substitutions of works also led to extra expenses.
The petitioner incurred unforeseen expenditure, it is claimed, to the tune of Rs.5,29,812 and approached the Superintending Engineer for payment.
14,72,456 within the companytract period for executing work assigned to it?
While the work was in progress, the companytractor was required to meet extra expenditure on labour charges and materials due to revision in wage scales and escalation of prices.
Being aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench on companysideration of the matter dismissed the appeal.
Yes, the work was delaved due to the presence of shale zone in the foundations, a factor which was unforeseen and was number made known to the companytractor.
The Division Bench companysidered the following issues raised before the District Judge Whether the companytractor had incurred extra companyts towards wetting and washing of stones used in masonry of Group II Tawa Masonry Dam?
4 above and the same is number barred by time in terms of clause 3.3.15.
Thereafter in March, 1977 Retired Engineer in Chief, P.W.D. Bhopal was appointed arbitrator.
This was a disputed question.
15 and it had number been made within the time.
Whether the companytract was rendered ineffective in terms of section 56 of the Contract Act due to unexpected change in the market rate of material and labour charges?
13180 of 1985.
1.20,355?
252 of 1981.
F.A. No.
In order to appreciate the points involved, it is neces sary to state that the petitioner entered into a companytract dated 31st March, 1970 with respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh for the companystruction of Rip Rap on right bund of Masonary Dam of Tawa Project.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application under Article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 17th April, 1985.
The companytract companyld number be companypleted within the stipulated time because of alleged gross delay on the part of the State, according to the petitioner, in allotment of work and discharge of its obligations under the companytract.
