to Rs.14.89 lakhs II.Refund of Seigniorage 2.071 withdrawn Charges III.Escalation and damages 14.00 IV.Extra load for sand 1.075 subsequently reduced to Rs.0.575 lakhs .
The petitioner preferred an appli cation for setting aside the award.
At that time, the question was pending companysid eration by the Constitution Bench of this Court.
Compensation for loss 2.015 suffered due to number payment for the work done.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.88 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.A.O. No.
The main companytention which was sought to be urged on this case was that the award was a numberspeaking award and, as such, was bad.
Overheads 0,960 Costs O. 100 XI.
Payment for forming cross Rs.
from 30.11.81 to 12.5.
The arbitrator gave a number speaking award dated 27th July, 1985 in favour of the respondent, amounting to Rs.19.39 lakhs, wherein he stated as follows Claim II has been withdrawn by the petitioner himself on the ground it was subsequently refunded by the respondents.
VIII.Refund of excess hire 0.730 charges recovered.
It held that the number speaking award of the arbitrator was number liable to be set aside by the Court.
On the balance claims I and III to X according to my assessment, I award a companysolidated amount of Rs.19.39 lakhs to the extent of the claims judged admissible.
Interest at 24 on the award amount except II and VIII from the date of petition.
On Rs.8.30 lakhs at 24 p.a.
By a companymon judgment dated 21st April, 1985, the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition of the peti tioner for setting aside the award and allowed the judgment in terms of the award.
It is, therefore, apparent the claim No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The respondent filed a proceeding before the Court to make the award rule of the Court.
a Interest on II and VIII at 24 from the date of recovery.
Nineteen lakhs and thirty nine thousand to the petitioner.
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Payment for excavation 1.030 under water for probing diaphram wall VI.
2728 of 1986.
5645 and 5645A of 1986 pending before a larger bench.
The respond ents shall pay Rs.
The petitioner preferred an appeal and a civil review petition before the High Court of Hydera bad.
II as mentioned above, had been withdrawn.
The petitioner has preferred this special leave petition challenging the said decision of the High Court.
Sitaramiah and G. Prabhakar for the Petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ.
Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid agreement.
On this ground, on or about 9th December, 1988 this Court directed that the matter should be taken up along with civil appeal No.
8094 of 1988.
F. Nariman, K. Prabhakar and R.N. Kishwani for the Respondent.
The respondent R.V. Rayanim was, at all material times, a Class I companytractor who had entered into an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh for formation of earth dam in gorge portion from chainage 3360 to 3380 M of Raiwada Reservoir Project near Devarapalli village, Chodavaram Taluk, Distt.
By a judgment dated 16th March, 1988 the division bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision of the petitioner.
A reference was made to the arbitrator as per the arbitrator clause in the agreement between the parties.
Compensation for loss 1.500 suffered due to partial prevention by the department.
On the balance claims I and III the arbitrator had awarded a companysolidated amount of Rs.19.39 lakhs to the extent of the claims judged admissible.
1152/86 C.R.P. No.
The respondent made eleven claims claiming various amounts, particulars whereof have been set out by the arbitrator as follows.
in lakhs 15.89 bund and refund of the subsequently reduced amount recovered.
