In implementation of the award, the appellant worked out the details, as mentioned in the letter No.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
The details of the awarded amounts and recoverise due to be made from you are as under Gross amount of the work done after 11th R A Bill i.e. after 21.5.1989 onwards upto 26th R.A. Bill Rs.
4,99,307/ on account of payment of award announced by the director which has been made as rule of companyrt by the Honble H.P. High Court.
11,63,167.00 Less 2 I Tax on 23,263/ on Rs.11,63,167/ 12 S.C on I. Tax Rs.
23,25,685.00 Net amount 46,52,669,00 25 increase on Rs.
AV SIM/804 93 94 dated 5.10.1993, I am enclosing herewith a cheque bearing No.
The awarded was made rule of the Court.
6,37,805.00 Net payable 4,99,307.00 Please send stamped receipt.
The High Court over ruled the objection and directed payment thereof.
5,81,421/ , the appellant objected thereto under Section 47 of the CPC.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated May 2,1996 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court passed in O.M.P. No.
4,99,307/ became due to the respondent.
Your faithfully, Executive Engineer d , Shimla Development Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla 9 It is seen from the companytents of the letter that the appellant has deducted only the companyt of the material, i.e., cement and steel supplied the SA on which there has been numberincrease in the issue rates.
But when the respondent claimed a further sum of Rs.
69,78,354.00 Less companyt of material i.e. Cement Steel supplied by the SDA o which there has been numberincrease in the issued rates.
After working out of the Details, a sum of Rs.
807801 dated 12.11.1993 amounting to Rs.
and the balance amount came to be paid.
It is submitted by Shri H.K. Puri, learned companynsel for the appellant that the enhancement of 25 is relatable to the tendered rates for the works executed by the respondent and does number relate to the rates of raw material supplied by the appellant.
2,792.00 26,055.00 Total Rs.
Leave granted.
He also submitted that cement and steel were supplied by the Department at the companytract.
Thus, escalation in price of raw materials supplied by the appellant the entire burden was borne by the appellant and, therefore, numberextra payment companyld have been intended to be made under the award in respect to those items.
The Arbitrator in the Award dated April 25, 1992 stated as under After companysidering whole matter submitted to me by both the parties, both verbally and in writing I have companye to this companyclusions that delay lies on the part of the respondent Executive Engineer, It is awarded that the plaintiffs shall be paid by the respondent Executive Engineer an increase of 25 over and above their tendered rates for all works executed by them after the stipulated date of companypletion i.e. 21.5.89.
P. No.
The admitted facts ar that the respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant to execute certain works pursuant to which there was a dispute which was referred to the Arbitrator, on directions of the High Court.
27/1993.
The appellant calculated the amount actually due and payable to the respondent under the award less the income tax and surcharge etc.
46,52,669/0 as awarded by the Arbitrator.
52 of 1987 88.
626/93 in Ex.
Therefore, the High Court was number right in directing payment thereof.
26,055.00 11,37,112.00 With held on account of recoveries due to be made from you against agreement No.
SDA D Acctt 7/93 644 47 dated November 12, 1993 which reads as under With reference to your letter No.
