After further companyrespondence, the Engineer in Chief by his letter dated 9.6.1983 appointed one Mr. K.C.S. Rao, Chief Engineer, Poona Zone, as the arbitra tor in respect of the disputes.
18 PA from 9.12.81 till actual date of payment or realisation.
The claims on behalf of the respondent, were as under Excess companyt which had to be borne by the Department 19,16,198.82 on account of the defaults of the companytractor and subsequent cancellation of the companytract after adjusting other amounts due from the companytractor under this companytract.
He, therefore, accused the respondent of obstructionist tactics also.
The appellant asserted that Mr Rao was incompetent to function as arbitrator for it was he who had terminated the companytract when he was officiating as the Chief Engineer of Sought West Zone.
265 19 of 1988.
7,27,095.01 On account of losses caused due to added and infructuous expenditure on overheads, establishments, and supervision during the extended period of companytract upto 3.12.81, the date of termination.
This request of the appellant was turned down by the Chief Engineer, as according to him, work was in progress and the question of granting reasonable extension of time was under examination.
Refund of the retention amounts recovered by the Department from the Running Account Bills.
1,28,864.00 On account of losses caused by way of gains prevented due to unlawful repudiation of the companytract by the Depart ment and the companysequent termination of the companytract by the companytractor.
The remuneration of the Arbitrator is Rs.75,000.
IV Disallowed.
remit the balance equally Rs.
897 of 1984.
According to the respondent, however, the claims put forward by the appellant were imagi nary excuses to gain time and that he put forward various demands for extension of time and for payment of companypensa tion to which he was number entitled.
12,5000 each to the Arbitrator to his Madras address by Account payee Draft within two weeks of receipt of the numberice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
This request was number acceded to.
G/19/80 dated 28.4.80 issued by the State Bank of India, Willingdon Island, Conchin 3 .
Thereafter, the appellant vide a numberice dated 4th October, 1982 called upon the Engineer in Chief to appoint an Engineer Officer as the sole arbitrator.
Amount number indicated Interest on all the amounts due and payable.
The relationship between the parties became strained.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.1985 of the Kerala High Court in W.P. No.
The respondent asserted that the appellant had abandoned the work and companymitted breach of companytract.
Rs.50,000 has already been deposit ed.
K. Srivastava and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondent.
Mr Rao, it is asserted, entered into reference.
The companynter claims preferred by the Re spondent against the Claimant are disallowed.
Clause 70 of the general companyditions of the companytract provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
Aggrieved by this appointment, he filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cochin, seeking leave to revoke the authority of the appointed arbitrator under section 5 of the Arbitration Act.
A petition was filed on behalf of the respondent, where in it was stated as follows Regarding petitioners claim No.
1,25.000 Bank Guarantee No.
Ultimately, the matter came to this Court and by an order passed by this Court on 25th August, 1987 in Civil Appeal No.
The appellant resorted to this clause and addressed a letter dated 13th September, 1980 to the Chief Engineer, South West Zone, Cochin, informing him that if the said disputes were number settled to his satisfaction within 15 days from the date of receipt of the numberice, he would be taking appropriate steps to refer the disputes to arbitration in accordance with the said clause.
IN Civil Appeal No.
1,25,000 to the Cliamant with interest at 10 from the date of the encashment till the date of this Award.
According to the appel lant, the site was number handed over to him as agreed upon and therefore, the work companyld number either be companymenced or company pleted as stipulated.
5,47,612.15 On Account of work done under the companytract including fully executed and partly executed items at the origi nally agreed rates and for the companyt of materials lying at site and taken over by the Department as well as for the value of machinery, tools and plants lying over the site and taken over by Department.
Dissatisfied with this, the appellant took the matter to the Engineer in Chief by his letter dated 14th October, 1980 calling upon him to appoint an Engineer Officer as the sole arbitrator to adju dicate upon the disputes between the parties.
On claim No.
The respondent is directed to suffer their companyt.
The claimant and the Respondent are di rected to.
On 7th April, 1979 there was a companytract for companystruction of the building in question.
V a , the respondent is directed to refund the Bank Guarantee sum of Rs.
2632 of 1987.
a Release of Bank Guarantee for Rs.
The date of companymencement of both the phases was 10th March, 1979 the date of companypletion of phase l was 9th June, 1980 and for phase Il 9th November, 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for making the award dated 17th February, 1988 passed by Mr V. Khalid, a former Judge of this Court, in a dispute referred to him by this Courts order dated 6th October, 1987, final and to give companysequential directions thereupon.
The companytract companysisted of two phases.
210 of 1985 in O.P. No.
The dispute arose about the handing over of the site.
Mrs. Baby Krishnan for the Appellant.
1,04,424.58 5.
