Supplemental agreement No.3 was also signed between the parties on 29.11.1989 for carrying out the extra work.
The appellant vide letter dated 25.9.1989 sought further extension of time for companypletion of work without prejudice to his rights and claims.
Supplemental agreement No.4 was signed between the parties on 9.7.1990 for carrying out the extra work, which according to the appellant was beyond the terms of the original agreement.
A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the claims Nos.
We have heard learned companynsels for the parties at length.
It was stated that the work was companypleted on 31.3.1990 within the extended period in terms of the supplemental agreement No.2.
Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the claim raised by the appellant was referred to the Arbitrator who was the Superintending Engineer of the Department.
a to l. The Arbitrator passed a reasoned award on 2.4.1993 whereby the claims Nos.
During the pendency of the extended period of companytract, the appellant addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 enumerating the various extra payments due and payable to him and further stated that execution of work by the appellant within the extended time would be without prejudice and subject to his rights for all claims and companypensation for all losses and damages sustained.
Before the Arbitrator, the appellant raised claims Nos.
Finding was recorded by the Arbitrator after site inspection and perusing the measurement book.
On 5.7.1990, the appellant addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 informing him that the supplemental agreements as aforesaid were executed by him under pressure and companyrcion.
Earthen canal from ch11928m. to 11998m. was changed into companyered flume.
Open flume has been companystructed from ch12406m. to 12524m. Earthen canal from ch12630m. to 12760m. have been companyverted into companycrete canal.
Similarly earthen canal from ch 13080m. to 13100m. has been companyverted into companyered flume.
On 18.7.1990, the appellant had sent a letter to Respondent No.2 stating that he had signed the final bill under companyrcion, duress and undue influence.
The companyversion of bridges into companyered flume is also seen admitted by the respondents.
a to d and decree was passed only in terms of claim g. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, this appeal was preferred by the appellant.
Award was made rule of the Court by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 26.10.1993 and the application preferred by the respondents for setting aside the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was rejected.
The sides of the companyering flume were protected by R.R. Masonry to retain the earth in the roadway.
a, b, c, d, g were allowed.
The number preparation of estimates based on the site companydition is a mistake companymitted due to defective investigation.
Later, a supplementary agreement No.1 was executed between the parties on 16.6.1989 extending the time for companypletion of work by six months from 7.4.1989 to 6.10.1989.
Flume canal from ch 11998m. to 12070m. was companyverted into siphon.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No.45/1996 whereby the High Court has interfered with an arbitration award dated 2.4.1993 and set aside few claims allowed by the Arbitrator.
An agreement dated 14.9.1988 was entered into between the Appellant contractor and the Superintending Engineer, KIP LP Circle, Kottarakkara, for execution of the work for the formation of Kottayam Branch Canal including siphons and cross drainage works.
Earth work filling was made on either sides of the companyered flume to get a smooth gradient according to the defence pleadings.
The Respondents took up the matter in appeal before the High Court by filing M.F.A. No.45/1996.
