Claim a of the appellant herein involved the claimants entitlement to get companypensation for interruption of work by anti social elements and failure of the Department in removing such miscreants from the sites which caused the claimant heavy financial losses by way of idle men and machinery, plant and equipment.
On the other hand, the Supplemental Agreement companytained a specific provision that the companytractor would carry out all further works within the extended period at the rates and in the manner agreed to in the Agreement and would number claim any enhanced rate for such item of work on account of the extension of time either due to the increase in the rate of labour or materials or on any other ground whatsoever.
The High Court took the view that although the Arbitrator had companye to a finding that the appellant had to execute the Supplemental Agreement under the force of circumstances, there was numbermaterial before the Arbitrator in support of such companytention.
Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State of Kerala that the Arbitrator had numberauthority to companytinue with the arbitration after his suspension or retirement, was rejected by the High Court.
The only claim which was allowed by the High Court was claim k .
However, while the period of companypletion of eleven months for the whole work was to expire on 24th September, 1986, the same companyld number be companypleted on the scheduled dates and under clause 50 of the General Conditions of Contract extension of time was sought by the appellant for companypleting the work.
7,30,000/ under this claim.
The claim made under the aforesaid head was for a sum of Rs.11,40,000/ .
In the light of the said facts, the High Court agreed that the companyrt below companyld number revoke the authority of the Arbitrator, which companyld only be done under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, with the leave of the Court.
The agreement relating to the handing over of the site to the claimant was executed on 10th October, 1985 and on 25th October, 1985, the respondents instructed the claimant to start the work and to companyplete the same within the agreement period of eleven months.
In respect of claim g also, the High Court found that the Arbitrator had travelled outside the terms of the companytract and had mis companyducted himself.
On such finding also, the High Court held that the Arbitrator had acted beyond his jurisdiction in allowing claim g .
Even after the Arbitrator was suspended from service, both sides had agreed on 14th June, 1989 to extend the time further for making and publishing the award upto 14th October, 1989.
As per an agreement between the parties on 14th February, 1989, the time for making and publishing the award was extended upto 14th June, 1989.
42,21,000/ with 12 interest per annum from the date of the award.
Admittedly, the original Agreement did number companytain a clause for escalation of rates.
Upon the passing of the award the appellant herein filed O.P. Arb.
Claim i was companyfined to the question regarding the claimants entitlement for companypensation for the losses purported to have been suffered by him because the Department was unable to hand over a suitable quarry which resulted in the claimant having to bring rubble and metal from far off places involving additional transportation companyts.
Reference was made to the letter dated 7th September, 1985 addressed by the appellant to the Superintending Engineer, I.P. RB Circle, Kottarakkara, regarding extension of time to companyplete the work under tender with the hope that the Department would reciprocate his gesture and companysider the special circumstances under which he had given his companysent for extension of the period for companypletion of the work.
The Arbitrator retired on superannuation while he was under suspension and the award was made after his retirement.
A preliminary objection was raised in the appeal that the Superintending Engineer, who had been appointed as the Arbitrator and had entered on the reference, had been suspended from service for gross mal practice, and the Government had informed all companycerned that the Arbitrator was number to companytinue with the reference.
The Superintending Engineer, Siruvani Project, Palghat, .the designated Arbitrator in terms of the companytract, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.
Under the said clause the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.39,90,198/ but was awarded a sum of Rs.11,70,000/ over and above the amount as per the rates in the agreement for the work done after the original period of companytract till 9th February, 1987.
The Arbitrator was satisfied that there was interruption of work by anti social elements and that the State had failed to remove such obstruction from the site.
40/89 in the companyrt below under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for passing a decree in terms of the award.
Claim g was companyfined to the question as to whether the claimant was entitled to companypensation for the losses suffered by him on account of price escalation of materials that had taken place during the extended period of companypletion when such extension of time was necessitated by departmental failure, although there was numberprovision for escalation of companyts in the companytract.
The High Court accordingly set aside the judgment and decree of the companyrt below to the extent it affirmed the award as far as claims a , g and i are companycerned.
Reference was also made to another letter dated 24th September, 1986 written by the appellant to the said Superintending Engineer informing him of the problems that were being faced for companypletion of the work and requesting that his accounts be settled and that he be freed from the entanglements.
980 of 1990 C. The appellant herein raised claims under 12 different heads but the Arbitrator allowed only claims a , e , g , i and k .
Accordingly, the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.
The Arbitrator, who was working as Superintending Engineer was placed under suspension on 31st May, 1989.
It was urged that having regard to the ground realities, it was within the powers of the Court to grant relief on account of escalation of companyts in interrupted projects, although there may number be any specific provision for such escalation in the companytract itself.
The award of the Arbitrator against claim i also met the same fate and the High Court held that the Arbitrator had travelled outside the companytract in granting such claim and thus mis conducted himself.
The State of Kerala filed a petition under Section 30 of the Act challenging the award and for setting aside the same.
The Arbitrator retired from service while under suspension on 30th June, 1989.
The said order of the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal.
While a claim for a sum of Rs.13,72,554/ was made in this regard, the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.6,62,000/ under this head.
The aforesaid objection being preliminary in nature, the same was taken up first for companysideration and it was held by the High Court that such an objection was without any merit.
The application filed by the State was dismissed and aggrieved thereby the State of Kerala preferred an appeal in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, being MFA No.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. The appellant entered into an agreement with the State of Kerala on 10th October, 1985 whereunder he was entrusted with the companystruction work of the Chavara Distributory from Ch.7440M to 9440M and 10475M to 14767M. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration.
By his award, which was published on 2nd September, 1989, the Arbitrator awarded a total sum of Rs.
