The disputes were referred to arbitration and the arbitrator gave a number speaking award.
So far as the cross claim by the appellant for companypensation for delay, the arbitrator negatived the same.
It appears the site was number made available on time and there were lot of disputes between the parties.
Subsequently, letter of intent was issued on 5/6.11.84 and then a work order was issued on 22.1.85.
The variation limit of plus minus 25 of the companytract price was applicable on the total companytract price and number on any individual quantities or items.
It stated as follows The companytract price has been arrived at on the basis of your quoted rates in your tender and the enclosed schedule of quantities, your quoted rates shall hold good for a variation of25 plus minus twenty five percent of the companytract price stated in this work order, beyond which your quoted rates will be suitably revised subject to mutual agreement.
for increase decrease Balance escalation in the quantities at on the original Rs.80,08,000 approx.
It is against the said judgment that this appeal is preferred.
The total value of work done upto 30.10.86, according to the appellant, was Rs.1,01,84,968.58.
The final bill was submitted by the companytractor on 9.12.86 for Rs.85,98,705 as detailed in the Annexure A thereto.
Part I of the work was upto Rs.94,34,323 and Part II was upto Rs.94,34,323.
But, it gave alternative findings on merits.
On the disputed claim No.4 he held as follows Payment of final bill, 50 of the revised including extra rates amount awarded.
On 26.12.86, the respondent claimed reference to arbitration.
Another companytractor was appointed by the appellant for the balance work and in fact, a cross claim for companypensation for Rs.7.64 lakhs was raised against the respondent.
This plea for extra rates was rejected on 31.1.286 by the appellant stating that the 25 clause applied to the overall net increase.
The said letter dated 22.1.85 of the appellant companytained the 25 clause which permitted rates higher than the companytract rates to be paid, as an exception.
This was prohibited by several clauses of the NIT, Special and general companyditions and under annexure R attached to the work order dated 22.1.85.
These facts are clear from the reply of the appellant on 18.3.88 filed before the arbitrator .
It was this balance that was allowed upto 50 by the arbitrator.
The balance escalation was number allowed upto 30.10.86, on the ground that the delay was attributable to the companytractor.
General Manager, Northern Railway, as sole arbitrator.
The letter also blamed the companytractor for delay in the work.
That would mean that the breach was number by the companytractor.
First Appeal No.211 of 1991 dated 18.10.94 held the reference was valid and allowed the appeal and directed the award be made Rule of Court.
The companytractor appealed to the High Court which by its judgment in Civil Misc.
It was stated that he was also companynected with the appellant.
It is number denied that the original date of companypletion was 30.6.86 and was extended upto 30.10.86.
The District Court referred to Madan Lal vs. Hukum Chand 1967 1 SCR 106, Hindustan Steel Works vs. Rajeswar Rao 1987 4 SCC 93 and held that the award was number liable to be set aside on merits.
By companysent, the District Court appointed Sri Dharwadkar, Ex.
The arbitrators award was set aside by the learned District Judge on the ground that the reference was bad.
The arbitrator in his award accepted the plea of the companytractor for higher rates upto the extended date.
His tender was accepted.
As pointed by the respondent in his companynter filed in this Court, it appears that 75 of the escalation was released by the appellant and the balance 25 was number paid on the ground that the appellant slowed down.
No appeal was preferred so far as the rejection of the cross claim The District Court, as already stated, set aside the award on the ground that the reference itself was bad.
There was companyrespondence between the appellant and respondent.
But, instead of giving him the entire companytract, the appellant awarded only 48 of the work of Rs.3,39,88,000 amounting to Rs.1,52,94,235, by letter dated 5.11.84.
He entered on the reference on 22.1.88.
The appellant varied the works both upwards and downwards.
While the matter was pending before the arbitrator, the appellant prepared final bill and the balance 25 was also allowed but only upto 30.11.85.
As, according to the companytractor, the sum total of variations went above 25 of the companytract value, the companytractor asked for higher rates in his letters dated 20.11.86, 8.12.86 and 9.12.86.
rate only may be Revised on 17.6.1986 as allowed upto Rs.70,98,852.67 30.10.86 In other words, the arbitrator awarded 50 of Rs.70,98,852.67 towards increase in rates.
The facts of the case are as follows.
The appellant filed an appeal before the District Court for setting aside the award.
It held that, as the award was number a reasoned award, but was one made on companysideration of all documents, the NIT, the tender papers, the offer, the acceptance and companyrespondence, it was number permissible to probe into the mind of the arbitrator.
Quotations were called by the appellant for works amounting to Rs.3,39,88,000.
Any revision of rates would be permissible only after the total companytract price stood increased or decreased beyond 25 on actual execution and companypletion of the companytract project.
LITTTTTTJ JAGANNADHA RAO,J. This appeal, which arises out of an award passed under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 companycerns the interpretation of a variation clause in the companytract which allows the appellant, the National Fertilizers Ltd., to issue directions to the companytractor varying the extent of the companytract work, both upwards and downwards upto 25.
