8,52,335.66.
That the papers for filing Srinivasa Rao s o Shri Ranga Rao by the deponent within time.
The appellant State filed O.P. No.34 of 1988 on 26.02.1980 for setting award on various grounds raised therein.
So far as the second companytention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State is companycerned, it was submitted by Shri Rao for Respondent No.1 that numbersuch companytention was ever canvassed before the arbitrator or even raised in any objections filed under Section 30 of the Act, number was such a companytention placed before the Trail Court or even before the High Court.
The site in question was handed over to Respondent No.1 companytractor on 01.08.1980.
That after the order of the Trial Court substituting the arbicrator, Respondent No.1 was required to move the Superintending Engineer of the area who was in charge of the work in question for referring the dispute to the newly appointed arbitrator and till that was companye the new arbitrator companyld number assume jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference and hence the arbitration proceedings before him and the final award passed by him were nullities.
The arbitrator was directed to sign a companyy of the minutes of the order and enter upon reference in accordance with the agreement and to make the award within four months from the date of entering upon the reference pursuant to the said agreement between the parties.
38,32,697/ with 18 interest per annum from the date of reference i.e. 27.06.1985 till payment in favor of Respondent No.1 which was made rule of the companyrt, was legally justified or number.
It is number in dispute between the parties that the said decision has become final.
However, Shri A. Raghuvir, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State, vehemently companytended that there is a patent error in the aforesaid finding of the learned Trial Judge.
All these objections were found unsustainable on merits both by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that there was numbersubstance in either of them and companysequently dismissed both of them by its impugned companymon order dated 08.04.1996 and thus companyfirmed the order of the Trail Court making the award rule of the companyrt.
He next companytended that in any case the award was a nullity being without jurisdiction as the procedure required by preliminary specification number73 which was binding on the parties was number followed in the present case.
The said award was submitted by Respondent No.1 for making it a rule of the companyrt by filing O.S.No.1420 of 1985.
The Trial Court took the view that the said application under Section 30 of the Act raising objections was time barred and as there was numberapplication for companydonation of delay, the objections companyld number be entertained on merits.
Some dispute arose between the appellant State on the one hand and Respondent No.1 on the other.
1 which was registered as S. No.35 of 1985 under which the award was sought to be made the rule of the companyrt.
The Trail Court companysidered the objections on merits and took the view that they were number sustainable in law.
The said finding was arrived at by the Trail Court on the ground that the numberice under Section 14 2 of the Act served on the appellant State on 18.12.1985 while the petition being P.No.34 of 1988 was.
Respondent No.1 companytractor had executed a works companytract assigned to him for laying distribution pipe to 32 fluoride affected villages in Prakasam District of Andra Preadesh.
The said petition was decided by the learned Judge after hearing the parties by his order dated 25.02.1985.
In place of sole arbitrator mentioned in the companytract one Shri T. Nabi Saheb, Superintending Engineer, Retired.
Against the said order of the Trail Court, as numbered earlier, the appellant State filed an appeal from order as well as civil revision application challenging the order of the Trial Court making the ward rule of the companyrt and also rejecting the objections filed by the State as barred by limitation.
As there was an arbitration clause in the companytract for referring the dispute to arbitration for resolving the same, the said clause got invoked between the parties.
Accordingly, Respondent No.1 moved an application being C.P. No.
A numberice was issued to the appellant State authorities about the said filing of the award by the Trial Court.
56 of 1984 under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to a the Act in the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for substituting.
That in fact, the numberice of the companyrt was served on 18.01.1986 on the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, N.A.P Circle Ongole, Prakasam District, as stated by him in his affidavit before the High Court and accordingly the limitation for filling the objections would expire on 17.02.1986.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Trial Court, the arbitrator entered upon the reference, heard the parties and adjudicated upon the dispute by a number speaking award and on various heads submitted before him by Respondent No.1 for adjudication, the aforesaid award of Rs.
That this companytention raised a highly disputed question of fact whether the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Ongile, companyld ever be approached by Respondent No.1 Contractor as per preliminary specification number 73 as according to him the companycerned Superintending Engineer was functioning at Guntur and that the said Supterintending Engineer who was the sole arbitrator as per the terms of the companytract was supersended and substituted by Shri Nabi Saheb as per the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the Trail Court which had become final between the parties.
As both the appeal from order and civil revision petition raised companymon companytentions, they were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court.
A few relevant facts leading to these appeals deserve to be numbered at the outset.
Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the companytesting respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the question of companydonation of delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Act does number survive at this stage as the Trial Court had companysidered the objections on merits by treating them as written statement to the suit files by the respondent companytractor for making the award rule of the companyrt.
In any case the said decision of the companyrt itself directed the arbitrator to enter upon the reference and, therefore, such a technical companytention companyld number be entertained for the first time in these appeals.
That O.P. was moved under Section 30 of the Act raising diverse objections to the award.
He, therefore, submitted may be remanded to Trail Court for companysidering objections under Section 30 of the Act on merits.
The companytention of Respondent No.1 Contractor was that the sole arbitrator, as provided in the articles of agreement, being the Superintending Engineer of Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad, A.P. Guntur, companyld number act as arbitrator as he was directly companycerned with the companytract work, he was required to be substituted by some other arbitrator.
These appeals by special leave are preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by a companymon judgment and order dated 08.04.1996 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal against order of the Trial Court as well as in companypanion civil revision petition arising out of the very same judgment of the Trial Court.
However, they were gone into on merits by treating them as a companynter of application of Respondent No.
As numbered earlier, it is the aforesaid companymon order of the High Court that has resulted in these appeals.
The period of work was twelve months.
The delay in filing the objections was, therefore, required to be companydoned in the interest of justice and that it was number necessary that a petition to companydone the delay was required to be filed, as wrongly assumed by the Trial Court.
The moment he came back, the objectors were filed.
A per the said agreement dated 30.07.1980 executed by the executive Engineer on behalf of the appellant State granting the said companytract to Respondent No.1, the initial value of the work was Rs.
B. Majumdar.
J Leave granted.
38,32,697/ with interest was passed by him on 25.10.1985.
Resultantly, the Trial Court made the award rule of the companyrt by its order dated 27.02.1989.
Ramchandranagar, Ananthapur, Respondent No.2 herein was appointed as soil arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that had arisen between Respondent No.1 Petitioner before the companyrt and the appellant State first respondent before the companyrt in respect of agreement dated 30.07.1980 relating to the work i.e. providing distribution pipe lines to 32 fluoride affected villages in Prakasam District.
As both the appeal from order and by limitation.
That objections raised in O.P were within time but because the learned advocate had to leave immediately from Hyderabad to Bangalore as his close relative had expired, the O.P. companyld be filed only on 25.02.1986 when the advocate returned to Hyderabad on 24.02.1986.
