It is the case of the appellant State that the respondent contractor did number companyplete the work within the specified time, that is, by 31.5.1982.
A few facts leading to the companytroversy in question may be stated at the outset.
1, 2, 4 8, 13, 15 and 16 companytained in the claimants aforesaid letter for arbitration to the sole arbitrator Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department of the State.
After hearing the parties, the arbitrator rendered his award dated 24th February, 1992.
That required the State to get the work companypleted through other agencies which resulted in incurring of additional companyt by the State in companypleting the said work.
It appears that the respondent issued a letter dated 16.11.1983 regarding various claims put forward in the said letter and seeking arbitration of the said disputes as per the clause companytained in the Special Conditions of the Contract.
6307 of 1995.
The work was to be started on 1.12.1979 and was to be companypleted latest by 31.5.1982.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Chief Engineer, Yamuna Valley Projects, Irrigation Department, Dehradun responded to the said letter of the respondent and referred the claims Nos.
The said award was sought to be made rule of the companyrt by the respondent.
6307 of 1995.
The learned Trail Judge Civil Judge, Dehradun, after hearing the parties, by order dated 11th March, 1993 made the award rule of the companyrt and further directed that the claimant shall be entitled to get the ordinary interest of 15.5 per cent per annum on the amount of award with effect from the date of the order upto the satisfaction of the decree.
Interest pendente lite was also allowed at 15 per cent and 6 per cent interest was allowed on the amounts found due from the date of the award to the date of actual payment or date of decree whichever was earlier.
7643 of 1995, the appellant State of U.P. has brought in challenge the aforesaid order of the High Court dismissing its appeal against the award decree passed by the learned Trial Judge subject to a slight modification in favour of the appellant State to which we will make a reference while companysidering the cross appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The appellant State raised various objections to the award being made rule of the companyrt.
MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. C No.
We have heard learned senior companynsel for the parties in these two appeals.
Both these appeals by special leave arise out of one and the same judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The work entrusted to the respondent contractor was for excavation of Khara Power Channel from K.M. 8 to K.M. 9.8 and also the companystruction of drainage crossings at Chhoti Lui at K.M. 9.2 and Bari Lui at K.M. 9.6.
Disputes arose between the parties in companynection with the work which was carried on by the respondent before the aforesaid date, i.e. 31.5.1986.
The cross appeal is filed by the respondent Harish Chanra Co. in Civil Appeal No.7643 if 1995 who has felt aggrieved by the modification regarding rate of interest as ordered by the High Court in the impugned judgment to the extent it reduced interest from 15 per cent per annum as awarded by the trial companyrt from the date of decree till payment to 6 per cent.
Time was extended and still he did number companyplete and left the work incomplete on 31.5.1986.
The arbitrator awarded interest on the amounts found due by him to the respondent at the rate of 15 per cent from 16.11.1983, that is, the date on which the claimant had sought for reference, to 5.1.1988 on different items.
On 26th October, 1979 an agreement was entered into between the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Construction Circle, Dehradun on behalf of the appellant State on the one hand and M s. Harish Chandra Co., New Delhi respondent herein on the other.
