The rates were mentioned in the Schedule and the respondent had set up the claims raised at rates higher than the companytracted rates and twice the rate for the work done after the expiry of the companytract period.
Resultantly, there had arisen a dispute as to the entitlement to further amount towards the work done by the respondent.
When the respondent exercised the power, after expiry of the time prescribed in the numberice, appointing a sole arbitrator, proceedings under Section 33 of the Arbitrator Act, 1940 were initiated by the appellant.
70.83 lakhs as under I hereby award and direct as follows The Respondent shall pay the claimant a sum of Rupees Seventy Lakhs eighty three thousand seven hundred and ninety three only Rs.
One of the objections raised by the appellant in the proceedings under Section 33 was that under the terms of the companytract the claim sought to be put up in the numberice given by the respondent was number arbitrable.
Calling the award in question, an application to set it aside has been filed.
70,83,793/ and release the earnest money deposit and Bank Guarantees furnished by the claimant in lieu of Security Deposit, in full settlement of all claims and companynter claims.
In the companyrse of execution of the companytract, a sum of Rs.
Against the claims, objections were raised by the appellant.
These appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment of the Madras High Court, dated December 20, 1990, made i n O.S.A. Nos.
1138 Schedule B to the agreement.
The umpire, without going into the details, in a number speaking award as against the claim of Rs.
Thus these appeals, by special leave.
q The admitted facts are that the respondents had entered into an agreement with the appellant to companystruct inter companynecting tunnels for Suruliyar Hydroelectric Project as per specification No.
2 crores 10 lakhs, has awarded a companysolidated sum of Rs.
47 lakhs and it was revised to Rs.
It is number as if all disputes would companye within the companye of clause 50 and only those that would companye within the ambit of clause 50 alone can be decided by the Arbitrators when such is the clear position on this aspect enabling the petitioner Board to raise a objection regarding disputes which may number companye within the scope of clause 50 is number a companycession, but a recognition of a right, which is available number only to the petitioner Board but also the first respondent in the event of the Board raising any dispute as against it.
92 lakhs was paid to the respondent.
The civil Court dismissed the petition of the appellant and made the award the rule of the companyrt.
The companytract was to be companypleted within a period of 24 months from the date of taking over of the site, i.e., January 18, 1975 thus, it was companypleted after the expiry of the term, on August 25, 1978.
The initial value of the tender to be awarded was Rs.
The respondent filed an application to make the award the rule of the companyrt.
They have disputed the claim set up by the respondents and requested the Arbitrators to decide on the arbitrability of the items mentioned in the claims of the respondents.
Leave granted.
Substitution allowed.
On a numberice issued by the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of clause 50 of the companytract arbitrator clause , there was a delay on the part of the appellant i n numberination of the arbitrator.
69 lakhs on January 16, 1975.
109 and 110 of 1988.
