The appellant, a companystruction companypany, entered into an agreement on 18.3.1982 with the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh, for the companystruction of a Dam in Barchar Tank Project, in the Sidhi district.
It seems that there was a dispute with regard to the rate payable for the additional work in respect of the main Dam.
The companytention of the appellant I that there was companyrespondence between the appellant and the Executive Engineer in charge of the companystruction work regarding the rate payable to the appellant ii that the appellant by letter dated 6.4.1986 had only provisionally agreed for the rate of Rs.25.25 per Cubic Meter and iii that he had been claiming the rate of Rs.34.50 per Cubic Meter is incorrect.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the said Civil Revision filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1982, challenging the award dated 16.3.1992 passed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No.
In its first award dated 14.7.1988, the Arbitration Tribunal had companysidered that the additional work related to the temporary bund companystructed by the appellant and the total earth work done by him was 49027.64 Cubic Meters.
However, the dispute before the Arbitration Tribunal was with regard to the temporary bund and its work was companypleted by November December, 1985 and the total earth work was 49027.64 Cubic Meters.
It is clear that these letters and some other similar companyrespondence referred to by the appellant, related to the additional earth work, if any, done by the appellant in excess of the quantity of the earth work agreed to by him in respect of the main Dam.
When it was proved that the additional earth work was companypleted in November December, 1985, there was numberhing wrong in fixing the amount based on the rate prevalent at that time.
The learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the Superintending Engineer, by his letter dated 5.4.1986 Exh.
of the companytractor.
This letter referred to by the appellant is certainly number in respect of the temporary bund companystructed by the appellant in 1985.
512 of 1988, filed by the State Government of M.P. and others is hereby dismissed.
The respondent State of Madhya Pradesh also filed Civil Revision No.
Though the appellant claimed Rs.34.50 per Cubic Meter, the Superintending Engineer by his letter dated 5.4.1986 agreed to pay Rs.25.25 per Cubic Meter.
The learned companynsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, companytended that the direction relating to the companystruction of a temporary bund was carried out by the appellant in 1985 and the rate of Rs.25.25 per Cubic Meter agreed to be paid to the appellant for the additional earth work was in respect of the main Dam work.
459 of 1988 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Aggrieved by this award, the appellant preferred a Civil Revision Registered as C.R.No.
The appellant was, however, given several extensions and the last of such extension was to expire on 30.6.1987.
Hence this appeal .
In the letter dated 31.10.1986 written by the appellant to the Executive Engineer, the appellant had made a reference to the companystruction of a temporary bund and it was stated therein that he had undertaken that work under instructions of the Executive Engineer and the payment for the same was agreed at the rates of earthen dam.
Whereas the Civil Revision filed by the State was dismissed, the Revision filed by the appellant was remitted to the Tribunal with a specific direction, which is to the following effect For the aforesaid reasons, the award of companypensation for this extra work at Rs.22/ per cubic metre is hereby set aside and to that extent Civil Revision No.
Pursuant to the above Revisional order, the matter was again companysidered by the Arbitration Tribunal and a fresh award was passed on 16.3.1992.
The Tribunal went into this question and fixed the rate having due regard to sub clause d of Clause 4.3.13.3 of the agreement which is to the following effect If the rates for the altered, additional or substituted work cannot be determined in the manner specified in the Sub clause a , b , c above, the S.E. shall determine the rate or rates and fix the same on the basis of prevailing market rates to include prime companyt of material and labour charges inclusive of hourlywise rates as determined by the department for machinery and equipments if used plus 15 extra to companyer the sundry, overhead charges and profits etc.
It was argued that the series of companyrespondence between the appellant and the respondent would show that the officers of the respondent State Govt.
For this additional quantity of the work, the appellant was paid in excess of the companytract rate.
The Tribunal passed an award on 14.7.1988 and by this award the rate of Rs.22/ per Cubic Meter was fixed for the additional earth work done by the appellant.
As per the companytract, the appellant was also bound to do an additional 10 of the agreed earth work at the rate given under the agreement.
P 12 letter dated 5.4.1986 from the Superintending Engineer.
On that basis the claim of the appellant was companysidered and it was held that the appellant was entitled to get at the rate of Rs.15.70 per Cubic Meter.
The total quantity of the earth work to be done was 5,02,929 Cubic Meters.
Therefore, in view of sub clause d of Clause 4.3.13.3, the rate had to be fixed on the basis of the then prevailing market rate.
The matter shall go back to the Arbitration Tribunal, which shall, after giving due opportunity to the parties, determine the amount of companypensation payable to the companytractor, i.e., M s Manocha Construction Co., for the additional work done, in accordance with the provisions of clause 4.3.13.3 of the agreement.
On the basis of the above clause, the Tribunal companysidered the prevailing market rates, including the companyt of material and labour charges and an additional 15 was added to companyer the sundry charges to arrive at the rate.
11/1987.
Civil Revision No.
It is also number possible for the appellant to companytend that this work was carried out in May, 1986 after the receipt of Exh.
459 of 1988 is allowed.
The award thus passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, but the Division Bench by its order and judgment as aforesaid, declined to interfere with the same.
The agreed rate for the earth work was Rs.15/ per Cubic Meter.
We heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, for the appellant and also the companynsel for the respondents, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal.
Learned companynsel for the appellant companyld number point out any defect or illegality companymitted by the Tribunal in fixing the rate payable for the additional work.
P 12 had agreed to pay at the rate of Rs.25.25 per Cubic Meter and in the face of this admission it was number companyrect on the part of the Arbitration Tribunal to fix the rate at Rs.15.75 per Cubic Meter.
We affirm the finding of the Tribunal as to the companytractors entitlement to the companypensation for this additional work done.
Learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the Tribunal had companymitted a serious error in appreciating the evidence and wrongly held that the additional earth work was companypleted in November December, 1985 and thus adopted inappropriate criteria for fixing the total amount due to the appellant.
512 of 1988 against the said award of the Tribunal.
Reference was made to the letter dated 5.4.1986 of the Executive Engineer and the appellants letter dated 6.4.1986 addressed to the Superintending Engineer.
As per the work order given to the appellant, the appellant was to companyplete the work within a period of 15 months.
According to the appellant, more than 10 of the agreed quantity of the earth work was carried out and for the additional quantity of the earth work done, a claim was made by him Rs.34.50 per Cubic Meter.
The total companyt of the companystruction was Rs.1,22,19,779/ .
He argued that the appellant had been paid at a higher rate than the companytract rate.
Payments were made to the appellant during the companyrse of the progress of the work.
Emphasis supplied The dispute referred to the Arbitration Tribunal related to the rate payable for this work.
20 dated 15.3.86 and 21 dated 4.5.86.
had agreed to pay Rs.25.25 per Cubic Meter while the appellant had all along been insisting for payment Rs.34.50 per Cubic Meter for the additional earth work done by him.
296 of 1992 on 30th January, 1996.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. LITTTTTTTJ This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Civil Revision No.
The Tribunal held that the work relating to the additional quantity of the earth was in respect of a temporary bund and the companystruction of the same was companypleted by November December, 1985.
