322 of 1976 this appeal does number survive and it is disposed of accordingly.Objections were filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
for the addi tional work of hard rock cutting was set aside.
323 of 1976 This appeal is directed against the order dated May 23, 1975 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court rejected C.M. No.
The extent of the additional work was about 10.60 lacs cft.,
35 of 1968.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1973 and 23.5.75 of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O. O.S. No.
In this appeal we are only companycerned with the claim of the appellant in respect of the additional work of hard rock cutting which the appellant was required to execute.
P. Juneja for the Appellant.
II, Gangtok, had requested for revision of the rate for hard rock cutting and stated that the minimum working rates for this item are 52 above the tendered rates.
III, CPWD, Calcutta, the Executive Engineer recommended the extra rate of Rs.200 per thousand cft.
35 of 1969 may be set aside and the appeal be re admit ted to its original number and the appeal be heard and decided on merits.
plus 2.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the appel lant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.
The rate fixed for the said work in the company tract was Rs.129 per thousand cft.
The award in respect of other item of the claim relating to expenditure incurred by the appellant in reconstructing the retaining walls after damage, was maintained.
It appears that the Government did number agree to pay at a rate in excess of the rate of Rs.129 per thousand cft.
The appellant submitted his analysis of rates on September 14, 1960 wherein after analysing the rates of materials and labour the workable rate worked out to Rs.200 per thousand cft.
The said appeal has been allowed by the judgment given today.
While undertaking the execution of the additional work of hard rock cutting the appellant in his letter dates August 24, 1960 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Central Division No.
The appellant has filed C.A. No.
plus 2 stipulated under the agreement.
1300 of 1974 filed by the appellant under Order 41, rule 21 read with Section 151 C.P.C., praying that the ex parte judgment dated March 27, 1973 in F.A.O. O.S. No.
The Superintending Engineer, in his letter dated February 23, 1962 addressed to the Additional Chief Engineer III, Central P.W.D., New Delhi, made a similar recommendation and the Additional Chief Engineer made a similar recommendation in his letter dated July 16, 1962 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing.
35 of 1968.
322 of 1976 against the said judgment of the High Court dated March 27, 1973 in F.A.O. O.S. No.
claim is jus and Eight hundred tified and if only in addition so, to what ex to the payment to tent.
322 323 of 1976.
The appellant has claimed a higher rate of Rs.200 per thousand cft.
The appellant claimed payment at the rate of Rs.200 per thousand cft.
i.e. about 140.
The ExecUtive Engineer by his letter dated September 2, 1960, requested the appellant to submit an analysis of rate for hard rock cutting.
By his letter dated November 9, 1961 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Central Circle No.
The appellant was required to perform hard rock cutting to the extent of 18, 18,704 cft.
for work in excess of 20 of the stipulated quantity.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. Civil Appeal No.
He also claimed certain other sums under other heads.
for this additional work.
The respondent filed an appeal against the said order and decree passed by the learned single Judge.
The dispute was, therefore, referred to arbitration.
3 in addition to the agreed rate and that there was numberescape from the companyclusion that the arbi trator had awarded the above amount by applying a rate higher than the agreed rate.
but actually he was required to execute such cutting to the extent of 18.15 lacs cft.
Under the agreement the appel lant was required to do hard rock cutting to the extent of 7.54,530 cft.
As indicated earlier, this appeal is companyfined to the claim of the appellant for payment for the additional work of hard rock cutting which the appellant was required to execute.
The award was filed in the High Court by the arbitrator alongwith his letter dated June 6, 1968.
The Executive Engineer also got an analy sis of rates done on the basis of the data companylected on actual observation and he arrived at a figure of Rs.237 per thousand cft.
for the additional work of hard rock cutting.
Since the judgment of the High Court dated March 27, 1973 has been set aside by this Court in C.A. No.
be made to him at relevant agreement rate for the total quantity of work executed by him under this item.
The appellant, S. Harcharan Singh, was awarded a companytract for companystructing approaches to the Bridge Structure B 2 on the North Sikkim Road in 1959 60.
Under the agree ment the appellant was required to execute hard rock cutting to the extent of 7,54,530 cft.
The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.52,800 against the said item.
1300 of 1974 in F.A.O. O.S. 35 of 1969.
35 of 1969 and M. No.
The arbitrator gave his award dated February 5, 1965 wherein he disallowed the claim of the appellant in respect of two items but made an award in favour of the appellant in respect of two items of claim.
Civil Appeal No.
terms and company an amount of for the quantities ditions of the Rs.52,800 Rupees beyond what is stipu companytract, the fifty two thousand lated in the agreement.
The said objections were companysid ered by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court and by order dated April 23, 1969.
the said objections of the respondent were rejected and it was ordered that the award be made a rule of the Court.
p. 296 In this companytext it would be relevant to take numbere of the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Parkinson Sir Lindsay Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of His Majestys Works and Public Buildings, 1949 2 K.B. 632.
322 of 1976 This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment dated March 27, 1973 of the High Court of Delhi in A.O. O.S. No.
The appeal was partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated March 27, 1973, whereby the award as regards the claim for higher remunera tion at the rate of Rs.200 per thousand cft.
B. Barua, Ms. A. Subhashini N.P. and Ms. Indira Sawhney N.P. for the Respondent.
