Calculated in the aforesaid terms, the arbitral tribunal awarded interest of Rs.1,31,544/ to the appellant.
The arbitral tribunal held the appellant entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per annum on the principal awarded amount of Rs.1,23,724/ , with effect from 19.8.1981 i.e., the date with effect from which the Interest Act, 1978 came into force till 5.4.1992.
The Miscellaneous Case, filed by the respondents was companytested by the appellant inter alia by raising a preliminary objection.
Secondly it was asserted, that the companytroversy raised by the appellant companyld number have been referred for adjudication by way of arbitration, after the appellant had received the final bill without raising any objection.
In sum and substance, therefore, by its order dated 22.12.2003 it was companycluded by the High Court, that the appellant companyld number reap the benefits of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal in his favour on 15.9.1998.
The arbitral tribunal held the appellant entitled to Rs.24,380/ towards price escalation.
It would be relevant to mention that section 30 aforesaid, postulates the grounds for setting aside an award, whereas, section 33 lays down the companyrse to be adopted for challenging, inter alia, the validity of an arbitral award.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneshwar, the respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court of Orissa under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The appellant, accordingly, claimed extra payment of 16 over the gross amount paid in the final bill.
It was sought to be asserted, that the Miscellaneous Case was barred by limitation.
In the said appeal, the respondents raised two companytentions.
The appellant was held entitled to refund of the entire sum of Rs.20,727/ deducted from his bills towards royalty.
In respect of claim item number5, the appellant was held entitled to a sum of Rs.78,667/ .
The suit filed by the appellant was decreed on 30.4.2002.
While adjudicating the instant claim, the arbitral tribunal found the appellant entitled to the difference between the companyt of supply of morum, as against the companyt of supply of earth.
In March, 1999, the respondents were served with the said numberice.
Dissatisfied with the judgment rendered by the High Court dated 22.12.2003, the appellant filed a petition for special leave to appeal bearing number12183 of 2004.
Once the disputes raised by the appellant were referred for arbitration and the rival parties submitted to the arbitration proceedings without any objection, it is numberlonger open to either of them to companytend that arbitral proceedings were number maintainable.
The respondents were directed to pay the awarded amount to the appellant, failing which, the appellant was granted liberty to recover the same through Court.
Notice to make the arbitral award dated 15.9.1998 rule of the companyrt was issued on 22.2.1999.
Leave was granted on 20.3.2006.
All these disputes were raised by the appellant, with the companycerned respondent s .
In so far as claim item number9 is companycerned, the appellant claimed interest at the rate of 18 per annum on the principal claim amount, from the due date till the date of final payment.
4, 5, 6 and 9, in favour of the appellant.
Yet the companytention advanced at the hands of the respondents, that it was number open to the appellant to have sought adjudication of his claims, by way of arbitration, after the appellant had received payments on the preparation of the final bill without raising any objections, was accepted.
And fourthly, the order passed by the High Court is companytradictory in terms.The aforesaid royalty was allegedly charged on the morum supplied by the appellant.
The estimated companyt of the said balance work was Rs.13,78,810/ .
The award rendered by the arbitral tribunal dated 15.9.1998, adjudicated claim item number.
The Miscellaneous Case filed by the respondents was rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneshwar by accepting the plea of limitation raised by the appellant.
In claim item number5, the appellant claimed Rs.5,51,173/ towards companyt of morum supplied, but for which numberpayment had been released.
In this behalf, the appellant claimed carriage of 47,106 cubic meters with 15 kilometers lead, at the rate of Rs.21.35 per cubic meter.
The determination by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneshwar, on the issue of limitation was upheld by the High Court.
Objections on behalf of the respondents were filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar on 6.3.2000.
The arbitral tribunal examined nine items of claim raised by the appellant.
The Court order dated 15.5.1981 referring the disputes raised by the appellant to arbitration, attained finality inasmuch as the same remained uncontested at the hands of the respondents.
In so far as claim item number4 is companycerned, the appellant had demanded an additional amount of Rs.2 lakhs on account of price escalation.
The award of the arbitral tribunal dated 15.9.1998 was made rule of the companyrt.
This claim was based on the fact, that after the work was assigned to him, the State Government had revised minimum wages of labour, and increased the same by 16.
The appellant eventually companypleted the assigned work in July, 1978.
This delay in companypletion of work, according to the appellant, resulted in financial loss to the appellant.
To companytest the arbitral award dated 15.9.1998, the respondents filed objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by filing a Miscellaneous Case.
For some reasons including change in design, the work companyld number be companypleted within the prescribed time.
Firstly it was sought to be asserted, that the objections filed by the respondents through the Miscellaneous Case filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, were wrongly rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneshwar, on the ground of limitation.
In claim item number6, the appellant demanded a refund of Rs.20,727/ deducted towards royalty from his bills.
In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant had some other grievances as well.
On 21.12.1999, the Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, and sought time to file objections.
In fact, all companymunications addressed by the appellant to the respondents remained unanswered.
The respondents were, thereafter precluded from asserting that the claims raised by the appellant companyld number be adjudicated upon by way of arbitration.
This request of the appellant was also number heeded to.
As per the companytract agreement, the work was to companymence on 1.1.1976 and was to be companypleted on or before 31.7.1976.
The appellant then sought reference of his claims for adjudication before an arbitrator.
Illustratively, the appellant sought payment towards some additional work executed by him, and also, refund of royalty deducted on account of the supply of morum.
The appellant thereafter obtained a Court order dated 15.5.1981, whereby the disputes raised by the appellant were referred to an arbitral tribunal.
The respondent s chose number to entertain the claims raised by the appellant.
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. The appellant was entrusted with the companystruction of balance work of earth dam in companynection with the Kharkhai Irrigation Project upto RL 316.50 on 31.12.1975.
