Since the factual matrix and the questions of law involved in all the appeals are companymon, these are being disposed of by this judgment.
Payment of interest on the amount payable to the plaintiff at the rate of 21 per annum from the date of execution of work till payment.
A formal agreement was executed.
However, in the penultimate paragraph of reply to I.A. No.
No separate reply to the application appears to have been filed.
2/1993 for production of documents by the defendants iii I.A. No.3/1993 for dispensing with numberice under Section 80 of C.P.C. All the applications were opposed by the defendants on merits of the claims made in the application seeking amendment of the plaint.
III Banganapalli at Nandyal Claims above Rs.
Apprehending expulsion, on 24.3.1992, the companytractor filed a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short C.P.C , registered as an original suit, with the following prayers Arbitrate the disputes mentioned in para 17 arising between the plaintiff and defendant under clauses 56 and 57 of section 2, vol.
However, the application was dismissed by the subordinate Judge.
On 26.3.1992 defendant No.2 issued numberice to the companytractor expelling them from the companytract on the ground that they had failed to maintain the rate of progress as per the approved programme.
On the basis of the pleadings, as many as eighteen issues were framed.
Or in alternative to direct the defendants to file the agreement before the Honble Court and appoint a sole arbitrator for adjudicating the said disputes referred to in paragraph 17 arising between the plaintiff and defendants under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Hence, the present appeals.
On 13.4.1992, the companytractor filed an application seeking interim injunction, restraining the defendants from encashing the bank guarantees for an amount of Rs.1,26,00,000/ , furnished by them towards mobilization advance and as performance guarantee.
No objection with regard to the maintainability of the applications was raised.
Aggrieved, the companytractor preferred appeal to the High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.1992.
In the light of the said order, on 17.1.1993, the companytractor filed three applications in the pending suit i A. No.1/1993 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint ii I.A. No.
Sometime in the year 1988, the Superintending Engineer, Srisailam Right Branch Canal for short SRBC , defendant No.2 in the Suit, issued numberice inviting tenders from pre qualified bidders of eligible source companyntries, which included India, for the work of excavation, lining and companystruction of structures of SRBC.
Chief Engineer, 10,000/ upto Major Irrigation, Rs.50,000/ Hyderabad The arbitration shall be companyducted in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 or any statutory modifications thereof.
It was a time bound project supported by credit loans from the International Development Association and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The orders passed in the said applications were number challenged.
Being aggrieved, both the parties preferred First Appeals to the High Court No.2206 2207 of 1996 and 236 237 of 1998 .
3/1993, it was stated that since time was required to examine the claims, issue of numberice under Section 80 C.P.C. was necessary and was number superfluous.
I of the companytract and also direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the amount so determined as payable.
However, we shall refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.6115/1999 as illustrative.
Settlement of claims above Rs.50,000/ All claims of above Rs.50,000/ are to be settled by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction by way of Civil Suit.
After trial, the suit was decreed in respect of some of the claims made by the companytractor with interest from the date of the filing of the suit.
It seems that only 50 of the allotted work companyld be companypleted by the due date.
Instead two additional written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants.
The suit was resisted by the defendants mainly on merits though it was averred that the plaintiff suit is number maintainable either in law or on facts.
While dismissing the appeal, the High Court observed that having regard to the language of the arbitration agreement between the parties and the fact that there was numberclaim for any specified amount in the petition, the suit as filed by the companytractor was number maintainable.
However, some of the claims made by the companytractor were rejected.
None of the issues pertained to maintainability of the suit.
The tender of the companytractor being the lowest, he was awarded the work valued at Rs.8,42,93,617/ .
Costs.
WITH Civil Appeal No.6115/1999, Civil Appeal No.1005/2000 and Civil Appeal No.1006/2000 K. JAIN, J. These four cross appeals, by special leave, are directed against two judgments and orders, both dated 3.3.1999, rendered by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeals No.2206 2207 of 1996 and 236 237 of 1998.
All the three applications were allowed by the subordinate Judge vide docket order dated 2.2.1993.
By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed all the appeals.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, the first defendant in the suit and plaintiff, namely, M s. Pioneer Builders, Engineers and Contractors, Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as the companytractor are the appellants before us.
Order passed in I.A. No.3/1993 reads as follows Heard both companynsels.
