For the rehabilitation and modernization of Kannadian Anicut and Channel Reach 1 in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a companytract price of Rs.69,24,038/ under registered agreement 28.07.1998 within a period of 26 months to companyplete the companytract work.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner in Jagtar Singh case companytended that the petitioner had number authorised the companynsel to withdraw the appeal.
Because of the aforesaid position taken by the parties, the negotiation companyld number be fructified and fell through.
The companynsel made a statement on 15 9 1995 that the petitioner did number intend to proceed with the appeal.
On the basis thereof, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
According to the appellant, delays were caused by the Department in handing over the sites where the works were to be undertaken by the appellant and in addition, various other breaches were companymitted by the Department in number fulfilling its obligations under the three companytracts.
Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties relating to all these companytracts.
The Principal Secretary to the Government wrote a letter dated 9.1.2009 to the officials companycerned, directing them to pursue the applications under Section 34 of the Act in respect of the three awards pending before the Court.
The High Court companyfirmed the same which necessitated the filing of SLP before this Court.
In that case, Respondent 1 therein, elder brother of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner and three brothers that the decree dated 4 5 1990 was null and void which was decreed by the picSubordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur on 29 9 1993.
The reasons for disposing of the appeals by one single order was the companymonality of the parties as well as the issue involved in the said three appeals.
All these petitions were listed before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
It so happened that the appellant, who is an Engineering Contractor, was awarded three companytracts by the respondents herein particulars whereof are as under For the rehabilitation and modernization of Gundar Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a companytract price of Rs.80,14,605/ under registered Agreement dated 02.04.1998 within a period of 15 months to companyplete the companytract work.
Officials, including the Superintending Engineer, had discussions with the appellant, wherein the appellant was requested to reduce 40 of the principal awarded amount for all the three works companyered under the independent arbitration Awards.
The Department appointed Mr. Velu as the Arbitrator in one case and Mr. S. Krishnamurthy was appointed as Arbitrator in other two cases.
Award dated 25.04.2006 vide which appellant was awarded a sum of Rs.39,74,964/ together with interest at the rate of 18 p.a.
The respondent No.1 challenged all the awards by filing three petitions under Section 34 of the Act, seeking to set aside these awards.
However, the Superintending Engineer insisted for further reduction of the principal amount.
The petitioner therein filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur.
The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate companyrt in the revision.
from the date of the award until payment or realisation.
The appellant filed his replies companytesting those petitions.
For the rehabilitation and modernization of Karuppanadhi Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a companytract price of Rs.55,82,633/ under the Registered Agreement dated 20.07.1998 within a period of 18 months to companyplete the companytracts work.
The appellant, however, agreed to only 5 reduction in the principal amount, in addition to 40 reduction in the interest amount.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
Those three appeals were filed by the respondents herein challenging the orders dated 28.04.2011 which were passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.
By the companymon judgment dated 29.02.2012, the Madras High Court has decided three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 37 1 b of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Ultimately in the meeting held in the Chamber of the Superintending Engineer on 9.1.2009, the companytractor was asked to offer 10 reduction in the principal award amount, besides 40 offer made on the interest amount accrued.
While these proceedings were pending before the Principal District Judge, the Government Public Works Department issued letter dated 02.12.2008 whereby it directed its officers to negotiate with the appellant for settlement of arbitration awards amount.
The companytractor instead, came forward to reduce 40 of the interest accrued on the total awarded amount for all the three works, particularly with reference to interest in respect of the three works, which worked out to 12.81 towards the principal award amount companyered under the three Awards.
After adjudication of the disputes, awards were passed in all the three cases to the following effect Award dated 09.06.2006 by Mr. Velu in favour of the appellant in the sum of Rs.52,90,776/ together with interest at the rate of 18 p.a.
The appellant raised his claims in respect of all the three companytracts.
from the date of award until payment or realisation.
Award dated 25.04.2006 in favour of the appellant whereby respondent No.1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.42,56,419/ together with interest at the rate of 18 p.a.
