We have been taken through all the relevant documents by the learned companynsel for both sides and we are satisfied that Ext.
P. 11 and P. 16 for the purpose of a just decision.
This does number appear companyrect since the method of jetting was adopted in the interest of the department in view of the sandy stratum obtaining at the site as against the indication given by the department that the soil is clayey upto a depth of nearly 200 ft.
1485 OF 1974 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 29 1 73 of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No.
Earlier also on July 25, 1966, as per Ext.
In the background of the companytroversy in this case even if the Department did number produce these documents before the Arbitrator it was incumbent upon him to get hold of all the relevant documents including Exts.
On October 7, 1965, the Chief Engineer after scrutinising the pile design of the companytractor wrote to him, inter alia, as follows The piles as per design submitted with raft like cap may be adapoted for tank at Thoppumpady where the length of pile suggested by the research division is in the region of 30 ft Jetting has to be resorted to in the top strata where sandy layer is met with Your statement that piles of more than 30 ft.
P. 11 and Ext.
He pointed out that this was number included in his original design.
The companytractor had to resort to jetting under instructions from the Department.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer anti K. R. Nambiar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam and restoring the award of the Arbitrator who had earlier refused the claim of the appellant.
He enclosed the details of expenditure on that account and mentioned that for the pile casting he used extra reinforcement for additionally strengthening the head of piles due to the site, companydition.
The Arbitrator was the Chief Engineer.
The sum and substance of the companytractors grievance was that he assumed the site companydition to be as represented in the schedule to the numberification inviting tenders and submitted his original design on that basis and since, however, the site companydition was found to be different and on the advice of the Research Institute jetting had to be resorted to involving extra expenditure he was entitled to claim additional amount for the work of jetting.
P. 11 and Ext.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division briefly the Research Institute submit ted a report Ext.
P. 10 dated September 14, 1965 that the sub soil at the three places chosen as sites for the reservoirs upto 16 in showed that the top soil was sand, the middle layer clay, and the bottom layer, silty sand or sand.
A clear indication regarding the nature of the strata that is likely to be met with was also furnished at the time of inviting tenders.
The Department, however, refused the claim which led to the arbitration under clause 34 of the tender numberification.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.
After receipt of the opinion of the Research Institute, respondent No.
P. 16 are material documents to arrive at a just and fair decision to resolve the companytroversy between the Department and the companytractor.
V. Gupte, C. J. Balakrishnan and A. S. Nambiar, for the appellant.
2 hereinafter to be described as the Department gave instructions to the companytractor to adopt the process of jetting for driving piles for the tank at Thoppumpady which is alone in dispute in this case.
P. 16 the Executive Engineer had written to the Chief Engineer wherefrom paragraph 4 is revealing Even though while inviting tenders for the work there was a companydition that the tenderer should examine the soil companydition it was number expected, of them to do soil testing in detail within the period available to them to tender for the work.
In the schedule annexed to the numberification inviting tenders under the heading Site, it was stated that the soil at the site for Reservoir No.
P. 1 1 dated September 8, 1966, is a companymunication from the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer with regard to the objections raised by Audit in companynection with the companystruction of the reservoirs.
site companyditions he provided jetting arrangements for driving the piles although the process of jetting was number included in his tender.
The appellant briefly the companytractor was a successful tenderer for companystruction of three zonal R.C.C. Overhead Reservoirs, two in Matencherry and one in Cochin, in companynection with the Ernakulam Mattencherry Water Supply Scheme.
It appears later on the Kerala Engineering Research Institute, Poochi.
It was stated that the clay found at the three places was of a highly companypressible nature and hence pile foundation was preferable and that as the top strata was sandy, jetting had to be resorted to for driving the piles through this strata.
The Accountant General has stated that the department is number bound to pay extra for adopting the method of jetting for pile driving.
1 and Reservoir No.
After companyplete ,oil investigation the strata was found to be different from that furnished by the department and so in my opinion technical specification has changed.
357 of 1972.
In the circumstances jetting clone by the companytractor can be companysidered as an extra item.
P. 16 after giving opportunity to the parties.
It appears the award was based on examination of documents and after hearing arguments of the parties.
