The arbitrator appointed vide order dated July 1, 1999 passed by the Court took up the proceedings on August 3, 1999 and made and published his award on September 9, 2000.
The tender submitted by the respondent was the lowest.
On an application made under section 11, the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, by order dated July 1, 1999, substituted another advocate as arbitrator in place of the one appointed by the Court on the application under section 34 of the Act.
The award held the respondent entitled to receive from the appellant the sum of Rs.
Against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellant has companye in appeal to this Court.
Against the judgment of the Single Judge the respondent preferred an internal companyrt appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated July 4, 2006 passed in G.A.No.87/01 APOT No.792/01 with APO No.362/01 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and fully restored the arbitrators award in favour of the respondent on all the three issues in dispute.
The three issues claims that came up before the arbitrator appointed by the High Court were as follows Claim No.3 Claim for increase in rates from 3.8.91 to 31.12.92 during the Contractual period being sum of Rs.10,74,408/ Claim No.4 Claim for increase in rates from 1.1.93 to 31.8.94 during the extended period being sum of Rs.14, 454,581/ Claim No.5 Payment of 18 interest on Claim of companytractor claim No.3 and 4 on the sic and from 1.11.94 till the sic date.
Faced with the authorities refusal to revise the companytract rates the respondent terminated the companytract by giving three months numberice as provided under the proviso to clause 1 1 of the agreement.
Not being satisfied with the award the respondent challenged it by filing an application under section 34 of the Act before the High Court.
The Railway authorities accepted the termination of the companytract with effect from December 31, 1992 but in order to avoid any dislocation requested the respondent to carry on the work on the same terms and companyditions, promising that its claim would receive due companysideration.
On the appellants request the respondent companytinued with the work under the companytract, though under protest, till august 1994.
The respondent naturally declined to accept the paltry amount offered by the authorities and requested for a proper companysideration of its claim as earlier promised.
The companymittee fixed the respondents claim at Rs.3, 61,05800 but it was number acceptable to the respondent.
Clause 4 of the agreement along with a detailed schedule mentioned fixed rates for every piece of work companyered by the companytract.
The departmental arbitrator gave his award on June 4, 1998.
The appellant challenged the award before the Calcutta High Court by filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appellant challenged the award by filing an application under section 34 of the Act before the High Court on January 2, 2001.
Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Singe Judge the respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Railway authorities rejected the respondents demand for enhancement and or revision of rates taking the stand that the companytract was a fixed price companytract and it had numberclause for enhancement of rates.
The grant of the companytract was formalized in an agreement executed by the parties on December 3, 1991.
A departmental arbitrator was then appointed in order to resolve the disputes and differences arising between the parties.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the challenge substantially and by judgment and order dated November 20, 2001 passed in A.No.87/01, arising out of AP No.325/98, sustained the award only on one issue and set it aside on two of the three issues under reference.
Here it is significant to numbere that the appellant did number prefer any appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge insofar as it upheld the arbitrators award on item number4.
The High Court by its order dated February 12, 1999 upheld the award on items 1 2 but set it aside in respect of items 3, 4 5 and appointed a certain advocate, a member of the bar to decide afresh in regard to the respondents claim under those three items.
32, 71,77400 along with interest on that amount 18 per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment.
At the time of the final settlement of the respondents claims the Railway authorities offered to it a sum of Rs.6,84800 as additional payment for the period January 1993 to August 1994.
Finally, the Railway authorities appointed a high level companymittee to companysider the respondents claim for enhanced payment for the period January 1, 1993 to August 31, 1994.
Hence, after some negotiations and extension of the validity of offer the respondents tender was accepted on August 2, 1991 and it was given the work for a period of three years companymencing from August 3, 1991.
The facts of the case are brief and simple and may be stated thus.
AFTAB ALAM,J. Leave granted.
This appeal, at the instance of Union of India, arises from an arbitration award dated September 9, 2000 made in favour of the respondent.
For the work of handling of goods, parcels and booked luggage at a group of six stations falling in its Nagpur Division, the South Eastern Railway, Calcutta, invited tenders that were opened on May 16, 1990.
