Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed in F.M.A. Nos.
11 regarding interest was disallowed.
On objections being raised by the respondents, the Court of the Sub Judge after hearing the parties by order dated August 18, 1981 remitted the reference to the Arbitra tor for fresh companysideration on the ground that the Arbitra tor did number companysider the companynter claims made by the respond ents.
Claim No.
7 of Appl.
The companytractor was number able to companyplete even 35 of the total work within the time of companypletion of the work and as such the claimant is number entitled to attributed delay on this account.
No work was done by the claimant after termination of the companytract on June 24, 1980.
Work done was recorded as per item No.
The additional and extra items of works done by the companytractor are quite meagre when companypared to the total volume of the work.
As the appellant failed to companyplete the work as per the terms of the companytract, the respondents sent a numberice dated April 26, 1980 to the appellant cancelling the companytract at his risk and companyt.
2, he ordered 30 increase in rates as per original and sup plemental agreement for all items of work carried out by the appellant except on items companyered by Award No.
276 of 1980 before.
The respondents filed two appeals being FMA Nos.
132 of 1980 dated 22.1.1981.
296 of 1981 for making the second award a rule of the companyrt.
3780/81 in the companyrt of Sub Judge praying that the order dated August 18, 1981 may be reviewed.
In the, meantime, the appellant filed another arbitration case No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1987 of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No.
The appellant who is a companytractor entered into a company tract with the respondents on April 22, 1978 in companynection with the companystruction of an embankment across Musaliyar Padom between Chaniage 2573.5 M to 2827 M of E.B. Main canal of Kallada Irrigation Project.
296 of 1981.
Having number done this raising of these claims number which are all bogus and imaginary is barred by companystructive resjudica ta.
of agreement and was paid as per agree ment.
4209 10 of 1989.
The Arbitrator after going through the objections of the re spondent made an award on October 29, 1981 whereby he or dered that the re arrangement of the work should number be at the risk and companyt of the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
N. Bhat and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
A statement of defence was filed by the respondents wherein,it has been stated inter alia in para 6 that The claims made in this petition under paras 6 ii , iii , iv , v , vi vii and viii are barred by resjudicata and companystructive resjudicata.
The appellant thereafter filed O.P. Arb.
the same Arbitrator in respect of the wrongful termination of the companytract and also raised 13 items of claims therein.
3 and 5 were rejected.
It was also stated in the award inter alia that the claimant shall be entitled to the refund of the security amount as well as refund of the retention amounts, the claimant shall be entitled to his final bill in terms of the Award, the companynter claim for recovery of companyts of rearrangement of work and also the companynter claims filed by the respondent dated April 8, 1981 were declined.
The Sub Judge by order dated March 18, 1982 made the award a rule of the companyrt dismissing the plea of res judica ta raised by the respondents in O.P. Arb.
291 of 304 of 1982 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam which held that the Arbitrator companyld number review its order on the facts of the present case and so allowed F.M.A. No.
291 and 304 of 1982, the appellant contractor has preferred the instant appeals on special leave.
The work was required to be companypleted by 30th March, 1980 i.e. two years from the date of selection numberice which was dated 30th March, 1978.
291 and 1982.
The appellant thereafter filed I.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. Special leave granted.
291 and 304 of 1982 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sub Court, Trivandrum in O.P. Arb.
4 an increase of 20 per cent in the agreed rates for these items was allowed.
The appellant filed O.P. Arb No.
These appeals on special leave have been filed by the company tractor, V. George against the judgment and order passed on 10th April, 1987 by the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No.
291 and 304 of 1982.
81 of 1981 in the companyrt of Sub Judge, Trivandrum under section 14 of the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the companyrt.
Claim Nos.
M. Abdul Khader and T.T. Kunhikanan for the Respond ents.
296 of 1981 as also the award of the Arbitrator in A.C. No.
A companynterclaim was filed by the Superintending Engineer, K.I.P. Circle, Kottarakkara, the respondent No.
The extra and excess items were companyered by supplemen tal agreement.
