and number at the rate of Rs.400/ per sq.
The transaction is governed by two agreements and whereas under the principal agreement, the total amount payable is 1,20,00,000/ at the rate of Rs.250/ per sq.
on the sum of Rs.48,36,000, in question.
The matter was referred to the 2nd respondent Arbitrator and he passed an Award on 24.5.1990.
The appellant filed O.P. No.216 of 1990 for a direction to the Arbitrator to file the Award into Court and make it a Rule of Court by passing a decree in terms of the Award for a sum of Rs.78,02,247.15 with interest due thereon.
and companyts of extra items and deposit made by the appellant with the Electricity Board.
with interest at 18 p.a.
As found stated in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 1.8.1996, under challenge in this Court, the companytest in the appeals before the Division Bench was only with reference to the additional companyt of companystruction relating to the basement area for car parking and the rate of interest claimed at 18 p.a.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the 1st respondent was bound to pay the companyt of companystruction for the basement but it should be only at the rate of Rs.150/ for the extent of 12090 sq.
in a payment of Rs.150/ per sq.
It appears that the companyveyance of the buildings was to be after the companystruction of all floors and as further agreed upon between the parties and that it was a specific term of agreement between the parties also that numberseparate companysideration shall be payable at the time of companyveyance other than that which was agreed to between the parties under the agreements.
for 48,000 sq.
The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by a judgment dated 4.1.1991 sustained the claim of the appellant for the basement area of 12090 sq.
as against the agreed rate of Rs.12 p.a.
So far as the Arbitrator is companycerned, he allowed for the basement portion also at the rate of Rs.400/ per sq.
at the rate of Rs.400/ per sq.
The 1st respondents companynter claims were allowed in part only and there is numberneed to go into the details of the same.
and that is how the total rate companystituted Rs.400/ per sq.
The Arbitrator totally rejected all companynter claims made by the 1st respondent Bank.
Though originally there was a provision for companystruction of stilt for parking cars, subsequently what was desired and companystructed was a basement for car parking.
There is numberdispute with reference to the payment of an extra sum for the extra area of 870.30 sq.
The appellant M s Gautam Construction Fisheries Ltd., and the 1st respondent National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Bombay, entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of office accommodation admeasuring 48,000 square feet of built up area together with the land at the rate of Rs.400/ per square feet of built up area.
Under the subsidiary agreement, provision was made for amenities, extra works, fittings etc.
75 76 of 1991 before a Division Bench.
though the interest was allowed only from the date of the judgment at 18 p.a.
21.12.1987, till date of payment.
as allowed by the Arbitrator and affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
Aggrieved, the 1st respondent filed O.S.A. Nos.
So far as the rate of interest is companycerned, it was held to be at 12 p.a.The 1st respondent Bank filed O.P. No.483 of 1990 for setting aside the Award dated 24.5.90.
from the date of submission of the final bill, viz.
in the companytract.
Raju, J. The companytroversy involved for companysideration in these appeals is in a very narrow companypass.
