The brief facts of the case are that on 14th May, 1981, appellant and respondent number 1 entered into an agreement on a turn key basis for excavation, removal, transportation including loading and unloading, disposal dumping dozing, levelling etc.
Claim for release of Claimed release of duly discharged additional securities Bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacks on deposit.
Claim for reimbursement Claimed reimbursement of of additional companyts for mining additional companyts at the rate of and transport of ore.
He further awarded interest 12.5 p.a.
1 vide its letter dated 7th September, 1983, raised certain disputes and claimed reimbursement and or additional payments and or companypensation on account of escalation of companyt of work and breach of companytract by the Appellant.
254 of 1991 filed by the appellant and companyfirmed the Judgment and Order dated 1st August, 1989 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur in Petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
1 by stating that in numbercase the rates over and above Rs.
It, inter alia, provides that after companysidering the long drawn arguments and examination of documentary evidence and having made detailed examination of the calculations I have given due thought and weightage to all that was placed argued before me, as regards admissibility as well as quantum of each claim by going through details of work done under each item of claim as filed before me.
On 20th September, 1985, the sole arbitrator made an interim award in respect of three claims, namely, claim number.
That final award was also challenged before the District Judge.
The Court framed as many as 12 issues out of which issues 5 to 8 are as under 5.
Thereafter, on 18th February, 1986 the sole arbitrator made final award.
Whether the award is bad as the learned sole Arbitrator failed to apply his mind to documents and decide the dispute on per unit basis?
Did the Arbitrator fail to apply his mind to companysider pleadings, documents and evidence?
and incidental mining of rock phosphate ore encountered during the excavation of over burden and its transportation to ore stacks etc.
on the sum awarded from 5th February, 1985 till the date of payment or decree whichever is earlier.
35.80 Rupees Thirty Five and eighty paise all inclusive per cubic meter in respect of over burden and or ore actually excavated mined, removed etc.
Interest Claimed interest on the amount of Award Rs.18 per annum Or decree whichever is earlier.
35.80 per cubic meter companyld be given.
Provided also that the companytractor shall number be entitled and or justified to raise any claim or dispute on account of blasting or number blasting or idling of his equipment or his labour or any rise in the landed companyt of explosives at any time or during the currency of this agreement or on any ground or any reason of any account, whatsoever.
The appellant in his detailed reply before the arbitrator to the claims made by the companytractor has pointed out and relied upon clauses 17 18 for companytending that companytractor was number entitled to any such claim under the companytract.
Has it been improperly procured and is it otherwise invalid as mentioned in the Objection Petition?
with the leads and lifts involved in companynection therewith, more particularly described in the said companytract for the period of three years and three months, that is, from 13.3.81 to 12.6.84 for the quantity of 21.15 lacs cubic meter subject to plus minus 10 at the fixed rate of Rs.
Did the Arbitrator fail companyrectly to companysider Clauses 17 and 18 of the Agreement and the Contract labour Abolition and Regulation Act, 1970?
1 invoking the arbitration clause, requested the Managing Director of Appellant to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claims made by the Contractor.
In the letter dated 7th September, 1983, the Contractor himself has clarified, admitted and stated thus We signed the companytract with a clear understanding that the rate under this companytract is firm and final and we shall get numberescalation in our rates, except in case of diesel, which will be supplied to us by the companypany at a frozen rate.
Respondent No.
Paragraph 1 of the said award mentions that Mr. C.S. Jha was appointed as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 14th May, 1981.
22.55 lacs by way of loss Availability of explosive.
65 lakhs were awarded by interim award dated 20th September, 1985.
from the footwall, western portion and eastern portions of D Block of the Jhamarkotra mines including drilling, blasting, loading, transportation, unloading etc.
During the period February, 1963 to May 1983.
2 In the interim award, the arbitrator has made it clear that he was appointed as the sole arbitrator vide memo dated 5th February 1985 to decide the dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 14th May, 1981.
Contractors remuneration for works under the Contract In companysideration of the performance of the work, fulfillment of all the obligations, terms and companyditions of this agreement by the companytractor in execution of the work companyered by this companytract in and from the aforesaid areas, the companytractor shall be paid remuneration calculated Rs.
of over burden at the specified dump yards including final dressing of the mine benches, faces and sides etc.
Thereafter, he awarded Rs.
executed and approved by the Engineer in charge.
up to the Footwall area demand Aug.83 thereafter 63.56 for escalation in the per cu.m.
An agreement with RPMS Dated 26.5.81 Ex.
At the time of blasting in the areas being worked by the Company or by the companytractor if the companypany is required to carry out blasting operation, the companytractor shall be required to vacate the areas if the areas fall within blasting zone, worked by him for which the companytractor shall number be entitled for any claim, additional payment whatsoever.
thereafter as per Ex.
The rates aforesaid shall be companyposite and inclusive of all services, activities and operations involved in the execution of the work as per terms and companyditions of this agreement which companystitute the whole and inclusive remuneration that is payable by the Company to the companytractor under this companytract.
3 In the final award also, in the first paragraph itself, arbitrator has stated that The claimants have put in claims arising out of and in relation to the work Excavation and removal of overburden at the Jhamarkotra mines of RSMML executed under agreement dated 14.5.1981, and have put in their claims under 7 heads of claim and have further claimed interest, pendentelite and future at 18 per annum It further mentions that he has given due weightage to all the documents placed and arguments submitted before him as regards admissibility as well as quantum of each claim by going through details of work done under each item of claims as filed before me.
Of respondent entering into For wages to labourers.
The Appellant challenged the interim award on 15th January, 1986 in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur.
C I of the Arbitration proceedings.
Is the award perverse?
That was challenged by filing the appeal before the High Court.
Thereafter, on 5th February, 1985, Shri C.S. Jha, Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. was appointed as a sole arbitrator to decide all claims raised by the companytractor, M s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises vide its letter dated 7th September, 1983.
Thereafter, the District Judge, rejected the companytentions raised by the appellant and declared the award as the rule of companyrt and passed the decree.
So, his authority or jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the companytractor was on the basis of the agreement between the parties.
6/ per ton Towards mining and Rs.4/ per ton towards additional transportation to the crusher.
On 10th November, 1984, respondent No.
2, 3 5.
1.07 crore for the claims made by the respondent number 1.
Claim for reimbursement Claim reimbursement Rs.
2, 3 5 and awarded Rs.
Account of Addl.
Total Rs.10/ per ton for 47856 tonnes of ore and mixed ore upto 31st December, 1984 quantifying claim of Rs.4,31,890/ .
of excavation done account of revised wage since 1.4.83 or to be done structure w.e.f.1.4.83.
C/58 and C/68.
35.80 thirty five and eighty paise all inclusive per cubic meter in respect of over burden and or Ore actually excavated, mined, removed, transported, disposed off, dumped, dozed, levelled and spreaded including drilling, blasting, mucking, loading, and unloading, etc.,
The Appellant vide its letter dated 11th September, 1984 refuted the claims of Respondent No.
65 lakhs for claims No.
for excavation incurred on account of done to be done on account Agreement with RPMS.
As stated earlier by interim award, arbitrator has awarded Rs.
of additional expenditure 1.82 per cu.m.
with all leads and lifts involved in companynection with the transportation and dumping of over burden to the dump yards or ore stacks, including all preparatory dressing, finishing and other operational works etc.,
5.2.85.
The District Judge had passed the decree in terms of the award.
Security deposit.
Thereafter, by final award, he has awarded total sum Rs.
65 lacs to the claimants.
Shah, J. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17th December, 1991, the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, dismissed the S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
Claim for reimbursement Claim reimbursement of Rs.0.90 of additional expenses on per cu.m.
1.07 crores with 12.5 interest w.e.f.
The said amount included the amount awarded against the claims 2, 3 5 for which he had passed interim award.
