The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department requested for clearance of foreign exchange from the Government of India.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent herein preferred Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.2096 2097 of 2002.
Aggrieved by the order dt.24.03.2004, the appellant preferred the above appeals.
On companysidering the prevailing circumstances, the time for companypletion of work was extended till 30.06.1975.
6 The Umpire filed the Award in the High Court of Madras and the same was numbered as O.P.No.428 of 1979.
In order to implement the aforesaid scheme, the Government invited tenders for manufacturing, supplying and delivering 1676 mm pre stressed companycrete pipes and fittings including transporting to site, laying, jointing and testing for raw water and clear water companyveying, from Veeranam Tank to Chennai City.
The respondent sought extension of time till 31.12.1975 in order to companyplete the work.
The learned Single Judge allowed O.P.No.122 of 1980 filed by the respondent and set aside the award passed by the Umpire and companysequently application No.560 of 1980 in O.P.No.428 of 1979 and O.P.No.428 of 1979 were dismissed.
The case on hand has a chequered history .
Aggrieved by the order dismissing C.S.No.176 of 1978, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in O.S.A.No.211 of 1990.
Aggrieved by the Award, the respondent filed O.P.No.122 of 1980 before the High Court for setting aside the aforesaid Award dated 10.09.1979.
This was done with a view to avoid delay in the project.
The Government of India also approved the foreign companylaboration arrangements.
The appellant Board also made a claim of Rs.50,29,63,320/ filed before the Arbitrators.
C.K.Sreenivasan gave numberice of his disagreement to the award.
On remission, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals holding that foreign exchange was to be obtained by the joint efforts of the appellant and the respondent, that the Government was number extending the time reasonably but in piecemeal, that the respondent had number companymitted breach of companytract.
Aggrieved by the order allowing O.P.No.122 of 1980, the appellant preferred an appeal in O.S.A.No.248 of 1989 and aggrieved by the order dismissing Application No.560 of 1980 in P.No.428 of 1979, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in S.A.No.59 of 1993.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras dt.24.03.2004 in OSA Nos.248 of 1989 and 59 of 1993, the above two appeals were filed.
The appellant appointed Sri.
It was further held that the appellant is entitled to companyts throughout and to interest at 9 p.a.
The factory at Panrutti also companymenced the operation and the equipment for manufacturing rubber gaskets was received in two shipments.
No.1607 Public Twad Department accepting the tender of the respondent.
The appellant further extended the time for companypletion of the work till 31.03.1976.
The import license for the gasket manufacturing unit was also cleared and a factory at Thirukalikundram was companymenced and the equipment for manufacturing pipes was also received.
However, the other Arbitrator, namely, Sri.
Subsequently, the Government suggested that the respondent should approach ICICI Ltd. for foreign exchange loan.
On the same day, C.S.No.176 of 1978 was also dismissed.
Sathyanarayana Brothers P Ltd. vs. T.N.Water Supply Drainage Baord, reported in 2004 5 SCC 314.
Again the respondent wrote to the appellant informing it that the work will number be companypleted even by 30.06.1976 and that it is impossible for them to carry out the work as per the original agreement, unless the rates are revised and on 30.06.1975, the work was abandoned by the respondent.
The Division Bench dismissed O.S.A.No.211 of 1990.
The Division Bench allowed O.S.A.Nos.248 of 1989 and 59 of 1993, preferred by the appellant, inter alia, holding that the respondent had stopped work without any cause, that the respondent had abandoned the work, that the award amount arrived at by the Umpire is companyrect and, therefore, passed a decree in terms of the Award dated 10.09.1979 passed by the Umpire.
from the date of the Award.
P.S.Subramaniam gave an award in favour of the companytractor for a sum of Rs.6,98,54,780/ .
Both the Arbitrators appointed Honble Mr.Justice K.S.Palaniswamy, a retired Judge of the High Court as their umpire.
Therefore, on 02.04.1979, the Umpire entered upon the reference.
The respondent stated that they were prepared to companytinue the work only if the rates are revised.
The Umpire passed his award, inter alia, holding that the respondent contractor is entitled to Rs.40,02,591/ from the appellant and that after allowing deduction for the same the respondent is liable to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.2,69,93,674/ with interest at 9 p.a.
The Government accepted the request of the respondent for a hike in the tender amount in view of the reduction on foreign exchange companyponent.
4 Since disputes arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement and appointed Sri.
from the date of Award.
The respondent herein submitted their tender.
Out of the said Award only a sum of Rs.5,000/ was awarded as damages for breach of companytract.
5 The learned Arbitrator Sri.
Again a request was made for further extension of time and the time was also extended for companypletion of the work till 31.12.1975.
The tender submitted by the respondent was the lowest tender and on negotiation the same was accepted by the Government and the Government issued G.O.Ms.
P.S.Subramaniam as their Arbitrator.
C.K. Sreenivasan as their Arbitrator.
The statement of claim of Rs.13,92,00,478.17 was also filed by the respondent before the Arbitrators.
An agreement was entered into between the respondent and the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department.
The Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.2096 2097 of 2002 were filed which were re numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.9136 9137 of 2003 and this Court remitted the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court to be companysidered in the light of the observation made in the paragraph 16 of the Judgment.
The arbitrators entered upon the reference on 18.03.1978.
It is also pertinent to numberice that the SLP filed by the respondent contractor against the very same judgment was also dismissed by this Court at the admission stage.
The Government of Tamil Nadu formulated a scheme known as Veeranam Project to provide drinking water to the city of Chennai and thereby overcome the problem of acute water scarcity in the city of Chennai.
The appellant filed Application No.560 of 1980 in O.P.No.428 of 1979 praying for a decree to be passed in terms of the Award.
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. Heard Mr.Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr.Dipanker P.Gupta and Mr.T.L.V.Iyer, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
