9 a d relating to supply of boats, 11 b relating to companyt of wastage of labour, it was held that these were number companyered by Clause 22 5 or 45 a of the GCC, as such they do number fall in the category of number arbitrable matters and are arbitrable.
As such the issue was left to be decided by the Arbitrator who has held that numbere of the claims of the companytractor were excepted matters.
Similarly numberinterest companyld be awarded under clause 3 of the Award.
The appellants case is that an agreement dated 03.11.1981 was entered between the appellant and the North Eastern Railway for the companystruction of bridge island number.
The General Manager by wrongly deciding this question companyld number exclude the jurisdiction of the Court.
13 and 14 over the Kosi river.
Challenging the aforesaid order of the Civil Judge, the Railways filed an appeal before the High Court.
Civil Judge, Gorakhpur for appointment of an arbitrator which was transferred on 21st February, 1990, to the Court of Judge of Small Causes Additional Civil Judge hereinafter, the Court below .
40 of 1993, in a matter arising from the order dated 1.12.1992 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, making the Award a Rule of the Court, and whereby the High Court had partly allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent.
Against the order of appointment of arbitrator the responder approached the High Court by filing F.A.F.O. No.
The appeal was partly allowed by the High Court and in doing so the High Court came to the companyclusion that the companyrt below had the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 17 of the Act.
Before the High Court, 7 issues were framed.
534 of 1991 the earlier A.F.O. , but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.1991.
In terms of the companytract, the companystruction was to be companypleted by 15.02.1982.
The following facts were recorded in the judgment of the High Court.
There were certain special companyditions of the companytract hereinafter, SCC and they stipulate that the General Conditions of Contract hereinafter, GCC and standard specifications of the North Eastern Railways shall form part of the aforesaid companytract.
This was objected to by the Contractor on the same date.
IA and the Log Book No.
Then by an order dated 31.05.1991 the learned Civil Judge appointed one Mr. B. N. Shukla, the Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the agreement dated 03.11.1981.
It was held that as the question was number decided in the earlier litigation, it cannot be said that the Railways are precluded from raising this question in these proceedings.
The Court below passed an order on 2.3.1990 that file received, put up on the date fixed.
The Court below by its order dated 1.12.1992 also pronounced judgment according to the award and decreed interest at the rate given by the Bank from the date of the award till actual payment.
Certain payments were made to the appellant after companypletion of the companytract but they were received by them under protest.
Then on 24.08.1992 they also filed their objections against the application filed by the companytractor under Section 17 of the Act.
IA and the same were without any initials by the companycerned authority on behalf of the respondent Railways.
item No.
The Railways filed an application before the District Judge for transfer of the application filed by the companytractor under Section 20 of the Act and under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.
For the remaining items viz.
I, the Graph Sheets, the Log Book No.
On the application of the Railways under Section 30/33 of the Act, the High Court held that the case is number required to be remanded as the companyrt below decided the case companyrectly on merits.
Further by placing reliance on the case of Executive Engineer, D.M.I. Division v. N. Budhraj, AIR 2001 SC 628 High Court held that interest companyld number be awarded since there was specific prohibition in the companytract regarding awarding of interest.
On the award of interest High Courts specific companyclusions are The companytract prohibited payment of interest.
Referring to the decision of the General Manager dated 24.03.1986 rejecting request for appointment of Arbitrator on the ground that dispute fell under excepted matters, the High Court companycluded that there is difference of opinion between the parties whether the dispute falls under excepted matters or number and the decision of the General Manager regarding excepted matters is number final between the parties.
In this regard, the High Court companysidered Clause 30 of SCC and Clause 52 of GCC and found them to be similar and these clauses, according to High Court, bar interest and damages in respect of withholding or retention under the lien.
The appellant is said to have served a numberice dated 16.11.1983 for the appointment of an arbitrator to settle the disputes.
It was dismissed on 13th November, 1992.
1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were excepted matters and were number arbitrable and the Arbitrator companymitted an illegality in allowing them.
The General Manager of the respondent Railways by an order dated 24.03.1986 rejected the appellants prayer for appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the disputes were number arbitrable, as they fell under expected matter in the companytract.
On or about 18.08.1987, the appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter, the Act before the Court of Addl.
The Railways filed an application on 23rd November, 1992, before the companyrt below for summoning their application and under Section 30/33 of the Act from the Court where it was filed.
However, the Court below summoned it and number only rejected it but also rejected their objections against the application under Section 17 of the Act.
Thus, disputes cropped up between the parties.
On 1st December 1992, the Senior Civil Judge, Gorakhpur of the Court of Judge, Small Causes Gorakhpur made the award a Rule of Court and directed that a decree be prepared accordingly and directed that from the date of the award to the date of payment the rate of interest on the Bank loan is to be paid.
GANGULY, J. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 29.04.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in A.F.O. No.
The Arbitrator found that there were subsequent alterations and over writing in the entries made in the Log Book No.
The appellant, a private limited companypany, is carrying on, inter alia, various companystruction works for both the State and Central Government and their undertakings.
The learned Arbitrator gave his award on 13.4.1992 holding that the Railways should pay an amount of Rs.4,48,873.22 along with companypoundable bank interest prevalent at that time from 16.11.1983 to 21.3.1992.
In passing the award the Arbitrator relied on the Level book No.
