It also directed payment of further interest at 6.
On 28th September, 1976 the last payment was alleged to have been made by the respondent.
The respondent, thereafter, raised a claim and gave numberice for appointment of an arbitrator.
The appellant filed a companynter claim for Rs.2,11,400, denying all the claims of the respondent.
However, on 30th December, 1975 the work was actually companypleted.
The value of the work was Rs.9,99,510.
On 30th October, 1976 the last bill was prepared which was nil one.
There was an appeal to the High Court and the High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and made the award of the arbitrator, rule of the Court.
It may be mentioned that the application was made for removal of the arbitrator Shri B. Patnaik but the same was ultimately dismissed.
From the Judgment and order dated 6.7.1987 of the Orissa High Court in C.M.C. No.
Before the arbitrator, the respondent filed the claim raising some claims which, according to the appellant, were fictitious and baseless.
Being aggrieved thereby the State of Orissa has preferred this appeal.
Consequently, the Chief Engineer appointed one Shri A.N. Nanda as the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause.
The arbitrator made the said award on 18th March, 1983 but the same was a number speaking and numberreasoned award for a lump sum of Rs.15,23,657 plus interest 10 from 9.9.1975 till the date of payment or decree.
It is asserted by the appellant that the respondent companytractor accepted the final payment and was duly paid a sum of Rs.23,74,001 for the work done by him including the extra work.
However, on the application of the respondent the learned Subordinate Judge removed Shri A.N Nanda and appointed one Shri B. Patnaik as the arbitrator.
4 F 2.
These claims were for the alleged extra work in respect of which the decision of the Superintending Engineer under clause 11 of the companytract was final and the same was excluded from the purview of the arbitration clause.
K. Mehta and Miss Mona Mehta for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The work pursuant to the companytract companymenced on 4th May, 1973 and 4th November, 1974 was the stipulated date of company pletion of the work.
Thereafter, numberamount was due to the respondent, according to the appellant, and he did number raise any claim whatsoever before the Department.
1389 of 1988.
It was companytended on behalf of the appellant that the arbitrator had numberjurisdiction to deal with such claims.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of orissa, dated 6th July, 1987.
During 1973 74 the respondent was entrusted with the job of Construction of Ramaguda Minor Irrigation project in Kukudakhandi Block vide agreement No.
It arises out of a companytract entered into between the State and the respondent for the companystruction of certain projects for irrigation.
L. Sanghi and Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondents.
Objections to the said award were filed in the Court.
All the documents and relevant papers were produced before the arbitrator.
375 of 1984.
