After the reference was made the respondent filed its claim before the arbitrators and wrote a letter dated 4th June, 1975 to them in which it was, inter alia, stated that aforesaid letter of 24th April, 1975 companytained the items under disputes which were being referred to arbitration.
Copy of the letter dated 24th April, 1975 was annexed to the letter dated 4th June, 1975 addressed to the arbitrators.
The essence of the dispute which had thus arisen between the parties was as to whether the revised rates based on market rates would be payable to the respondent when the total value of the work exceeded the deviation limit,i.e., the total companytract value plus 20 per cent, as was companytended by the repondent herein, or whether the revised rates market raies would be payable against each item as and when the work performed against any item exceeded the deviation limit of 20 per cent, which is the case of the appellant herein.
Disputes number 1,2 and 4 were dealt with together and the arbitrators, without assigning any reason, directed the appellant board to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.47 lacs from the date of the deviation upto to 30th June, 1975, in addition to the payment already made.
With regard to the companystruction of Giri Hydel Electirc Project, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, item rate tenders were invited for certain works companynected with the said project.
Vide its letter dated 24th April, 1975 the respondent had written to the Chief Engineer of the appellant submitting a list of disputes for arbitration.
The formal companytract between the parties for the execution of the said work was entered into on 2nd February, 1968.
The companytractor thereafter filed an application B.N.P.No.35 of 1978 with a prayer that an additional issue be framed with the result that the following issue was framed on 24.4.1978 Whether or number the objection petition of the respondent is legally maintainable ?
There were 22 items which wre listed for which the enhanced rate was to be given, though the respondent had made a claim in respect of 108 items.
The said companytract was awarded to the respondent for a sum of Rs.5,04,15,107 and terms and companyditions, which were binding on the parties, were incorporated in the aforesaid companytract.
The quantities to be companysidered for the purpose of deviation limit where original item of work is executed along with allied items of work for which rate is decided from tender schedules.
When the award was filed in the Himachal Pradesh High Court the appellant herein filed its objections.
For the work done after 30th June, 1975, the appellant board was required to pay to the respondent for the items at the rate stated in the award.
On 2nd December, 1967 respondents tender was accepted and it was given an order to companymence work.
After the arbitrators entered upon the referene they companysidered the following items of dispute Dispute No.
OP Parties The patties prodcued their evidence on the various issues and finally the learned single judge C.R. Thakur, J. vide his judgment dated 5.4.1979 held that except of the award pertaining to dispute No.7 the rest of the award did number suffer from any error apparent on the record.
Whether the award sufferes from legal misconduct on the part of the arbitration ?
Hence this appeal.
After the pleadings were companypleted the following issues were framed Whether the award is incomplete O.P Objector.
In respect of dispute No.7 the appellant herein was held to be entitled to recover only the variations in the electricity duty and number the variations in the tariffs effected after 1.3.1974.
On 20th November, 1976 the arbitrators gave their award.
Dispute No.
Dispute No.
OP Objector.
OP Objector.
OP Objector.
Revision of rates for the different items of works and the time from which they should be applicable.
If so, what is its effect.
Whether the award is in excess of the jurisdiction ?
If so, what is its effect ?
The appellant then filed an appeal before the Division Bench which by its judgment dated 4th March, 1985 upheld the decision of the single judge.
