Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Others vs Shri Ramendra Narayan Bhattacharjee on 18 August, 2020
Bench: Akil Kureshi, S.G. Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
ARB A No.01 of 2020
The State of Tripura and others
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
Shri Ramendra Narayan Bhattacharjee
......... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A. For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY _O_R_D_E_R_ 18/08/2020 This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Unakoti, in Title Suit No.02(ARB)/2018. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to confirm an arbitration award and reject the application of the State seeking setting aside of an arbitral award dated 30.04.2018.
The respondent-contractor was awarded work for raising and strengthening of embankment at a particular spot by way of construction. Page 2 of 3 The total value of the work was Rs.43,14,159/-. The work had to be completed within three months from 25th February, 2010. The work was, however, not over within the said period. The same was eventually completed after nearly 1 year and 10 months beyond the stipulated date of completion. The contractor sought arbitration for unpaid amounts in which he raised several claims. The Government opposed the claims. The Arbitrator rendered his award on 30.04.2018. He allowed some of the claims of the contractor. He held that the contractor was entitled to a sum of Rs.72,508/- towards final bill, Rs.46,960/- from the un-released security deposit. He also held that the contractor was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- towards price escalation. He also held that the contractor would receive interest @ 9% on unpaid amount of final bill and withheld security deposit from 23.03.2016 till the date of the award and thereafter till payment.
The award for payment of final bill and security deposit was virtually based on admitted facts. In this appeal the Government has only questioned the direction for payment of price escalation.
In this context, the Arbitrator had noted that though the work execution went on long beyond the period envisaged for completion, the Page 3 of 3 Government had not levied any fine or imposed any penalty for the unfinished work.
Under the circumstances, the Arbitrator was of the opinion that the contractor must get a reasonable price escalation. The Government argues that the work was delayed on account of lapses on part of the contractor and therefore he was not entitled to any price escalation.
In a given set of facts, we would have been persuaded to examine such a question more minutely. However, in the present case the Arbitrator has viewed the issue in peculiar factual backdrop which the District Judge has also approved. More importantly the amount involved is extremely small. Considering such factors, keeping the pure question of law if it arisen in future in better facts open, this appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ Dipesh