The arbitrator, however, companymitted a patent error by granting escalation based on the price index of December 1991.
On the other hand, the changes so made were of the category and type of aqueduct and its total design had involved companyossal changes.
35,36,129 as shown by the respondent.
49,23,263.
On 26th October, 1991, the arbitrator rejected the companynter claim on the ground that as per the direction of this Court, he had only to quantify the amounts which were left unspecified by the earlier arbitrator Shri Avtar Singh.
7.49 crores.
As regards the increase, 01 decrease in the rate of wages, it was the average companysumer price index for industrial workers at the town nearest to the site of the work which Was to be taken as the basis, the index being that released by the Labour Bureau of the Government of India and published in Ihe Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.
On 22nd May, 1992, the respondent preferred objections against the award in this Court.
plus companyts of Rs.
On 14th August, 1987, Shri Avtar Singh gave his award in favour of the appellant without mentioning any specific amount.
An application under Section 16 1 b of the Arbitration Act had been filed on that ground before the Court for remitting the award while the claimant wanted the award to be made a rule of the Court.
4,17,097 on account of increased sinking depths, have been awarded.
As the respondent have pointed out, this itself has made a difference of Rs.
Before the arbitrator, thereafter, both the appellant and the respondent filed their respective statements, companynter statements and documents and also their respective written statements.
On 4th April, 1988, the respondent terminated the companytract.
Hence, on 6th September, 1984, it was decided to adopt pre stressed companycrete super structure.
This involved increase in the quantities.
He also pronounced an interim award in favour of the appellant amounting to Rs.
This amount included interest upto 31st March, 1992 and also escalation on the awarded amount.
Shri Avtar Singh has also number recommended any extra rate for boring wells in artesian companyditions.
24.40 lakhs paid to the companytractor for companystruction of field offices and companyonies etc.
The Claims preferred by the appellant amounted to Rs.
Against the said decision of the High Court, the appellant preferred an appeal by special leave to this Court being C.A. No.
Over and above these rates, he also allowed a premium of 575 Shri Avtar Singh took the view that the appellant was entitled to the extra companyt incurred by him on account of increase in quantities numberwithstanding that the companytract was on a lump sum basis because the modifications made in the design were number to the aqueduct which forms part of the agreement but of a different type which was number included in the agreement.
78 lakhs.
The Company took the average of both the rates given in CSR Volume II p 52 and that rate is Rs.
The increase in quantities on account of the said changes were also verified by the respondent State.
These gave rise to a dispute between the parties and ultimately in July 1986, the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Chief Engineer of the respondent, Shri Avtar Singh.
47.80 and applied the premium of 575.
What is further, the arbitrator also disallowed the recovery statement submitted by the State Government which was to the tune of Rs.
1.91 crores which included a sum of Rs.
He further held that the modifications in the design were number the modifications referred to in the agreement for which the appellant contractor was number to charge extra amount.
6.10 crores.
It was also number a case where there was numberdispute about the performance of the companytract.
Thereafter, they also filed an appeal in the High Court to set aside the award.
The respondents have produced the companyparative price indices of both labour and material which show the price indices for December 1991 January 1992 were almost double those averaging during the period from July 1984 to March 1988.
as a part of he lump sum companytract which was originally granted.
On 16th November, 1987, Senior Sub Judge, Ropar made the award the rule of the Court overruling the objection of the respondent that the final amount having number been specified, the matter be referred back to Shri Avtar Singh.
3181 of 1991.By its order dated 13th August, 1991 this Court appointed Justice A.D. Koshal Retd.
as the companyrect one and awarded the total companyt of boring on the said basis.
of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal.
The respondent preferred its objections to making the award rule of the Court by Order dated 16th November, 1987.
55 lakhs, pending the working out of the final amount as per the directions given by him in the award.
It is wrong to take the average of both the rates for calculating the companyt of boring the two.
It is this order which was challenged by the respondent in the High Court.
322.65 as claimed by the companytractor was also disputed by the Government which companytended that it is number more than Rs.
Even with the said average rate and the said premium, the rate companyes to Rs.
The price index lor the material was to be obtained from the companypetent authority.
In spite of this, the arbitrator took the said depth of 27.85 mtrs.
By its judgment and order dated 11th January, 1991, the High Court set aside the award.
1,42,500.
Thus, the dispute related to the ascertainment of the quantities as well as to the quality of the work done under the companytract.
The appellant later on, however, claimed extra amount on account of the increase in the quantities and companyts.
What is more, the rate, viz.
Shri Chopra says that he will number lead any evidence to proved the register which is therefore, number admitted in evidence and is being returned to him.
In terms of this agreement, the escalation was to be given to the companytractor as per the price indicated both for labour and material prevailing during the quarters from July 1984 to March 1988, the companytract having been terminated on 4th April of 1988.
3,10,936.00 due to change of the item from excavation to sinking and Rs.
He has companycluded his arguments.
The quantities of the work done in the sub structure were number ascertained when Shri Avtar Singh had entered the reference since the work was then in progress and without the ascertainment of the said quantities, the award given by Shri Avtar Singh was incomplete.
However, the agreement had provided that in ease of any deviation in the design, increase in companyt will number be charged to the respondent.
The drawings and designs submitted by the appellant did number show any sealing arrangements with provision for proper bearing pads.
The arbitrator has also number taken into account the amount due from the companytractor to the respondent as on 1.4.1988.
On 2nd April 1992, the arbitrator pronounced an award in favour of the appellant for Rs.
32,38,542.00 on account of wastage of material and Rs.
2.70 crores including the work of the super structure amounting to Rs.
The companyts of boring through rock and through the boulder have to be calculated separately on the basis of the depth to which they were so bored.
1,59,15,052.
He also held that the respondent Government was number companypetent to change the said type after the execution of the companytract agreement even with the companysent of the appellant unless a supplementary agreement between the parties in writing was executed.
However, on account of the said extended scope of the reference, the arbitrator had also to take into companysideration the companynter claims of the Department which arose out of the entire said work.
7.49 crores.
A companytract on turn key basis was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 19th April, 1984 for.
It is number disputed that the rate for boring through rock is five times more than the rate for boring through the boulder.
The drawing and design was to be supplied by the appellant for approval by the Department.
On this account alone, as shown by the respondent, amount of Rs.
The arbitrator had allowed the claims by way of recovery amounting to Rs.
The respondent Irrigation Department the Department proposed to get a Aqueduct companystructed across the Sirsa river for a distance of 15.455 Kms.
B.Sawant, J. The present appeal arises out of an arbitration proceedings.
The order stated as follows Against the award submitted to the companyrt for being made a rule of the Court the main objection of the State of Punjab was that the item wise payments due to the companytractor had number been quantified and, therefore, the award was number companyplete.
hereinafter referred to as the arbitrator the respondent on 13th October, 1991 submitted their companynterclaim of Rs.
