Bangalore District Court
M/S. M. Munivenkatappa vs Union Of India By on 13 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS: JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.NO.3)
Dated this 13 th day of November 2020
A.S. No. 33/2007
Present :- Sri. Jaishankar. B.Sc., LL.M.
XV Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Petitioner :- M/s. M. Munivenkatappa
and Company,
Civil Engineering Contractors,
having its office at No. 17/3,
First Floor, next to Anjaneya Temple,
Chunchgatta Main Road,
Bangalore-560062.
represented by its partner
Mr. M. Jayaram
Son of late M. Munivenkatappa
Aged about 48 years.
(Rep. By A.A.S., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents :- 1. Union of India By
Chief Engineer (Air Force) Military Engineer Services, No.2, D.C. Area, M.E.S. Road, Yeshwanthpur Post, Bangalore - 560 022.
(Rep. By N.C.S., Advocate)
2. Sri. K.Ravi Kishore CE (QS & C) Sole Arbitrator Standing Panel of Arbitrators Hyderabad,MES, Golkonda, Hyderabad -500 008.
Arbitrator (Exparte) Date of Institution of the suit: 27.06.2007 Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote, Suit for declaration and possession, Suit for Arbitration Suit injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence:
NIL Date on which the Judgment was pronounced:
13.11.2020
Total duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
13 04 16
JU D GM E NT
The Plaintiff/ Petitioner has filed this suit praying to set aside the findings given in the Arbitral Award dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Respondent/ Defendant No.2 with regard to issue Nos. 1(a), 1(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(j), 2(q), 2(am), 2(an), 4, 7 to 11 and 14 and to allow the said claims as prayed by them.
2. The brief averments of the plaint/ petition are as follows :-
That the Plaintiff/ Petitioner is a renowned and reputed Engineer and Contractors firm executing works for defence services i.e., Military Engineer Services for the last 50 years and has executed works costing about Rs. 4 Crores each. Military Authorities and Civilian Officers have commended their works. In response to an invitation of the tender by the Respondent/ Defendant No.1 on 26.07.2003 they submitted their tender and it was accepted by the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 on behalf of the Union of India for an amount of Rs.1,00,67,629.98/- vide Contract Agreement No. CE (AF) BAN/14 of 2003-04. The work order was issued on 30.10.2003 and work was to be completed on 29.10.2004. The date of completion work was extended to 30.01.2005 and they completed the entire work by 30.01.2005, whereas the GE has certified the completion of the contract on 15.07.2005. Thus, the actual date of completion of the work was itself in dispute. During the execution of the work, a large number of extra items of work were executed by them. Later, they they submitted final bill and the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 did not allow certain claims and hence they received the payment under protest on 06.04.2006. To resolve the disputes, Defendant/ Respondent No.2 was appointed as sole Arbitrator as provided under condition 70 of General Condition of contract. They filed their statement and after hearing the parties, the Defendant/ Respondent No.2 passed award dated 26.02.2007 which was received by them on 03.03.2007. The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 prepared drafts of deviation orders of certain changes and they and representatives of the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 have signed the same. However, the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 did not regularize the said deviations and they denied the payments.
3. Further case of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner is that as for as claim 1(a) is concerned, the Hon'ble Arbitrator had agreed that the Accepting Officer has taken decision in the said matter without giving opportunity of hearing to them and that the decision was influenced by the recommendations of the CWE-DIR (C) and that the decision was given after the contract was completed. The The Hon'ble Arbitrator has also come to the right conclusion that the Accepting Officer has not followed the process of equity and hence the said decision is not valid. The Arbitrator has also agreed that it is the case of discrepancy in the drawing. But, the Arbitrator ignored the fact that the structural drawing that was not showing stepped floor slab and it was revised four times after the commencement of the work. This clearly show that there was no intention to provide stepped floor slab on storeroom and passage. Though, there is an ambiguity in the drawings, the same has not been considered by the Arbitrator. Contractor cannot be penalized for the mistake of the Department. The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 should not have been permitted to take advantage of its own drawings. Thus, applying the principle of contra proferentum it should have been held that the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 being the drafter of the said document, interpretation of any discrepancy must have been held against them. While replying to quantification of their claims, the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 have corrected the claim amount of Rs. 1,27,289/-as against Rs. 1,36,053/-. But, the Arbitrator has awarded only Rs. 39,048/- which is totally incorrect. No reasons are given as to how and why he has awarded a lesser amount which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law. Thus, they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 97,005/-towards claim No.1(a). As for as claim No. 1(c) is concerned, as per condition 6A of General Conditions of Contract, the description in schedule 'A' supersedes description in particular specification. This aspect has been totally ignored by the Arbitrator in the award. The decision is against public policy and amounts to misconduct and hence the finding is liable to be set aside. As for as CI bends of 300 mm and 200 mm dia and foot valve also, the Hon'ble Arbitrator has ignored the fact that a note is given under serial No.8 of schedule 'A' part XI at page 37 of the CA. As for as 100 mm dia CI butterfly valves, the Hon'ble Arbitrator also ignored the fact that while replying to quantification of claims, the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 has agreed that the same are required to be paid by them. This is also an instance of misconduct and arbitrariness on the part of the Arbitrator. No reasons are given as to how and why he has awarded only Rs.29,479/- against the claim of Rs. 1,60,458/-.
4. Further case of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner is that regarding Clause No.2 (d), the Arbitrator has ignored the fact that specification given on page 199 to 205 of CA refer to schedule 'A' part XI is not a lumpsum schedule but a measurable schedule. The item of stainless steel over flow channel gutter (16 Nos) is not mentioned any where in the schedule. This is a mistake by the drafter and it should be strictly interpreted against the granter of the document, who is the Defendant/ Respondent No.1. The Arbitrator has rejected their claim which is incorrect and they are entitled for a sum of Rs.47,780/- with respect to the same. With respect to claim No. 2(e) the Hon'ble Arbitrator had agreed to the fact that the specification was drafted poorly. While execution, the Department asked them to provide size of the pressure filter 2000 mm dia 2100 mm high as per the particular specification. This has been confirmed by the manufacturer. But, the Hon'ble Arbitrator had come to a conclusion that the height of the cylindrical portion of the filter shown by the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 is 1250 mm only. The Arbitrator has not given why he did not rely on the written statement by the manufacturer. The conclusion is totally biased, arbitrary and without proper understanding of the subject. Hence, their claim of Rs.7,48,000/- towards said account has to be allowed. As for as Claim No.2 (j) is concerned, the said provision is of staging to support form work to side walls of swimming pool and roof beams of gallery. However, on the insistence of the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 extra cost was incurred, which is liable to be reimbursed. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has stated that they have not produced any evidence regarding the same. Though, the photographs were produced, they were not considered. Thus, the refusal of the Arbitrator to allow the said claim is arbitrary and they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,10,872/- towards the same. As for as Claim No. 2(q) is concerned, the Hon'ble Arbitrator had agreed to the fact that the edges of the exposed faces of slabs are machine cut and inspite of that the Arbitrator has totally rejected their claim which is wholly arbitrary, oppressive, biased and amounts to misconduct. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.48,984/- towards the said claim. As for as Claim No.2 (am) is concerned, the decision of the Hon'ble Arbitrator that they have provided PCC of RMC on their own will, cannot be accepted. As such, the decisions taken in that regard is false, but tinged with bias and arbitrariness. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.35,665/- with regard tot he same.
5. Further case of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner is that as for as Claim No.2(an) with regard to additional costs for bailing out water from swimming pool and balancing tank due to heavy rains is concerned, extra expenditure was incurred by them and it was only due to the wrong planning of the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 and later approval of drainage works. They cannot be penalized for the lapses of the Defendant/ Respondent No.1. The finding of the Arbitrator with respect to the same is erroneous, arbitrary and capricious. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.31,600/- with regard to the same. As for as Claim No.3, error in deviation orders is concerned, though there was no arguments for both the sides, the decision was given and the said decision is also non reasoned and defective. As for as part A D.O. No. 36 is concerned, the Arbitrator has ignored the fact that the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 have prepared a deviation order for the change and later they have refused. As per the said D.O, unilateral amendment is impermissible in law. Ignoring the same, amounts to contravention of the provisions of law. They are entitled for Rs. 16,362/- towards the said claim. As for as DO No. 37 is concerned, after getting their signature, the draft D.O. was altered by including certain "omit items" which are not included in the contract. The drawing did not cater for any stirrups for beam FB3 and FB 3A. The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 prepared a plus deviation order for Rs. 13,398.80. They had not considered any omission for the D.O. After completion of the contract the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 revised the D.O. without their acceptance and added certain omit items which were not catered in the contract. No details are shown in the contract and later in the revised drawing, the details required were shown. Without discussing any of the above aspects, the Arbitrator has arrived at a conclusion that the D.O. is fairly prepared by the Defendant/ Respondent No.1. As for as D.O. No. 46 is concerned, the conclusion arrived by the Arbitrator is wholly erroneous and arbitrary. Though, sufficient exhibits were produced, they were not properly considered. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.24,518/- with regard to the same. As for as DO No.34 is concerned, the Arbitrator did not understand the claim at all. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has not given any reason for rejection of their claim. He has also totally ignored the expenses incurred by them for surface water. The decision arrived on the same is also arbitrary, oppressive and biased against them. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.90,334/- with regard to the same. As for as DO No. 42 is concerned, since SAIL and TISCO could not supply the required quantity and specified sections of CRS Steel, the enquiry with the respondent and on their approval, CRS Steel was procured from VSP during November 2013 the Respondent/ Defendant No.1 also agreed that VSP was also the same repute and standard and hence it is technically and contractually acceptable. CRS Steel was procured from VSP without any price adjustment. Arbitrator has ignored the agreed conditions of the contract. The arbitrary has not referred the actual facts. The Arbitrator has also refused to refer to Exhibits C-4, 7, 10, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 40, 42, 58, 62, 138, 173 to 176 and 217 and none of them were considered while passing the impugned award. The same tantamounts to gross misconduct and against public policy. The Arbitrator has also totally neglected to consider that the price of steel was always increasing. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.82,091/- towards the said claim. As for as Claim No.4 is concerned, the Arbitrator has allowed rate of interest at 10.25% p.a. for a period of 10 ½ months. The same has to be allowed with respect to claim 1 to 3. As for as Claim No.7 is concerned, the Arbitrator has clearly agreed that the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 has caused several delays in not giving timely decisions and that such delays should have been avoided by prudent planning. The actual delay caused by the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 amounts to 694 days and extension granted was for only 120 days. They were not allowed freedom to work at the original pace intended as per the contract. The amount assessed by the Arbitrator towards the same is at Rs.1,17,312/- and it is wholly insufficient and negligible. No reasons are given has to why such a low amount is being awarded. No reasons are mentioned as to why their claim for Rs.25,86,680/- cannot be allowed. Hence, the amount awarded by the Arbitrator needs to be increased to the amount claimed by them. As for as Claim Nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, the Arbitrator has agreed that all the delays for which extension of time was granted are attributable to the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 only. But, while passing the order, the same was not considered. They are entitled to the amount claimed by them. As for as Claim No. 10 is concerned the same is to be reviewed similar to claim No.4. The same is to be enhanced by 7.5%. As for as Claim No.11 is concerned, the amount award by the Arbitrator is Rs.55,000/- as against Rs.7,50,000/- which is not proper. The Arbitrator has awarded only for enlargement of defects liability period and he has not imposed any penalty to the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 to their breaches. With respect to Claim No.12 they had submitted final bill for an amount of Rs.1,44,39,554/- vide letter dated 08.08.2005. However, the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 has only paid a sum of Rs. 4,91,316/- on 06.04.2006. They reduced certain amounts from their claims and made certain additional recoveries. There are also errors in escalation changes (page 48 of the award) and same has to be reviewed similar to claim No.4 and
10. The Arbitrator has also erred in holding that they have failed to establish that they had submitted drawing for internal electrification and water supply, external E/M services, wiring test sheets and earth test sheet. The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 had confirmed the same vide Exhibit C-183 and the Arbitrator has erred in holding that they have failed to submit the same. Hence, the deduction of Rs.7,500/- is liable to be refunded to them. As for as reimbursement of excess amount of KST recovered in the final bill, an amount of Rs.33,656.96/- has been recovered in excess. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has totally neglected even to make mention of the said claim in the award. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.33,656,96/- and the same has to be allowed. As for as the Claim No.14 is concerned, the Arbitrator has come to the conclusion that both the parties should bear their own costs. The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 had breached the contract and as such the cost of Rs.1,65,000/- is required to be paid by them. The Arbitration Award suffers from various other infirmities . The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. On all these grounds, they have prayed to set aside the Arbitral award dated 26.02.2007.
6. The Defendant/ Respondent No.1 have appeared through their Counsel and they have filed their objection and they have contended as follows :-
That the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner has not made out any ingredient as necessitated under Section 34 of Arbitration Act for filing this petition. The specific misconduct or error apparent on the face of the award has not been made out. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The award does not suffers from any misconduct or error apparent on the face of the records. This Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of Arbitrator or re appreciate the evidence relied on by the Arbitrator. The power under Section 34 is neither an appellant power nor revision power. This Hon'ble Court cannot go behind the Award of the Arbitrator. They are engaged in Military Engineer Services and they had engaged the services of Plaintiff/petitioner for provision of Swimming Pool and connected services and the amount of contract was Rs.1,00,67,629.98/- and the period of completion was 12 months. The total claim by the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 before the Arbitration is Rs.1,75,52,782/- and the award amount is Rs.25,62,835/-. The work structural drawings were supplied well within time. During the execution of work the plaintiff/petitioner carried out about 34 deviations. The said deviations are as per the agreement. The rate is fixed as per the agreement. After completion of assigned work, the plaintiff/petitioner requested to refer the matter to Arbitrator for adjudication on the ground that they failed to consider their claim. On representation, the dispute was referred to sole respondent No.2. After hearing the matter, the claim was partly allowed. They have also filed an Arbitration suit in A.S. No. 25/2007 challenging the validity of the award. The claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is that the award passed is without giving opportunity to them is unreasoned. The Arbitrator allowed some of the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner. It is false that the alleged award of the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction. It is also false that the award came to be passed without application of mind and discussion on the subject. It is false that the Arbitrator with oblique motive passed an award. It is also false that Arbitrator intentionally failed to consider some of the claim of plaintiff/petitioner. It is also false that the Arbitrator failed to consider the delay in completing the work. All the averments made in the petition/ plaint are all false. The averments made in the petition are contrary to Section 34 of the Act and there are no grounds to allow the suit/petition. If the petition is allowed, they will suffer irreparable loss and inconvenience and it cannot be compensated by any means. No hardship would be caused to the plaintiff/petitioner, if the petition is not allowed. On all these grounds, the Defendant/ Respondent No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the suit/petition.
7. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire materials on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows :-
1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the Arbitration Award dated 26.02.2007 passed by the 2nd defendant with respect to Contract Agreement No. C.E (AF) BAN/14 of 2003-04 is exceeding the jurisdiction and the said award is against the public policy?
2. Whether the award passed by the Arbitrator is perverse, illegal on the face of it and arbitrary?
3. What order?
8. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials on record, I answer the above points as here under :-
Point No. 1 :- In the negative
Point No.2 :- In the negative
Point No.3 :- See final order for the
following
R EA S ON S
9. Point Nos.1 and 2 :- Since these two points
are interconnected, they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition. The plaintiff has filed the suit challenging the Arbitration Award dated 26.02.2007 passed by the 2nd defendant with respect to the Contract Agreement No. C.E (AF) BAN/14-2003-04. It is not in dispute in this case that the plaintiff is the Contractor and the first defendant Military Engineer Services had engaged the services of plaintiff for construction of swimming pool (small) and connected services at Hq TC(U), Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that the amount of contract was Rs.1,00,67629.98/- and the period of completion was 12 months. Further, it is not in dispute that the date of commencement of work was 30.10.2003 and the actual completion of work is 28.01.2005. As per the pleading when the plaintiff submitted final bill, the defendant No.1 did not allow certain claims and the payment was received under protest.
10. Since this is a suit filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 it is just and proper to refer to Section 34 of the said Act. The said Section 34 reads as follows :-
34. Application for setting aside Arbitral award:-
(1) Recourse to a Court against an Arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section. (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An Arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if-
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that-
(i) a party was under some incapacity; or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this part; or
(b) the Court finds that-
(i)the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation.- Without prejudice to the generality of sub- clause (ii), it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81".
11. Further, Section 5 of the said Act reads as follows:-
Section 5. Extent of Judicial intervention. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part".
12. As such, from reading of the above two provisions, it is clear that none of the grounds contained in sub-section (2)(a) of Section 34 deal with the merits of the decision rendered by an Arbitral Award. It is only when we come to the conclusion that the award being in conflict with the public policy, the merits of an arbitral award can be looked into.
13. In the decision reported in (2003)5 SCC 705 in which in the case of ONGC Ltd Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd., it is held that "the phrase 'Public Policy of India' used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/ judgment/ decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. The award could be set aside if it is patently illegal, contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law or justice or morality. Illegality should go to the very root of the matter and if the illegality is of a trivial nature it cannot be held that the award is against the Public policy. The award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court. As such, it is clearly held in the said decision that an Arbitration Award can be set aside only if it is patently illegal on the face of it and if it is against the public policy. The illegality must go to the root of the matter.
14. In the decision reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 in the case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at para 33 that " it must clearly be understood that when a Court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a Court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the Arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. Thus, an award based on little evidence or on evidence which does not measure up in quality to a trained legal mind would not be held to be invalid on this score. Once it is found that the arbitrators approach is not arbitrary or capricious, then he is the last word on facts". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the said decision that it is held in the case of P.R.Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., Vs. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd., reported in 2012 (1) SCC 594 at para 21 that "A Court does not sit in appeal over the award of an Arbitral Tribunal by reassessing or reappreciating the evidence. An award can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of any ground under Section 34(2) of the Act, it is not possible to re - examine the facts to find out whether a different decision can be arrived at".
15. As such, it is clear from the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when an Arbitration Award is challenged the Court does not set in appeal over the award and it cannot reaccess and reappreciate the evidence. The Court has to see as whether the Arbitration Award is capricious, illegal arbitrary and opposed to public policy and whether any of the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made out. To set aside an Arbitration Award, it should be patently illegal on the face of it which goes to the root of the case and it should be opposed to Public Policy of India.
16. In this case the plaintiff has contended that the Order passed by the Arbitrator with respect to claim No. 1(a), 1(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(j), 2(q), 2(am), 2(an), 3, 4, 7, 8 to 12 and 14 and D.O. Nos. 34, 36, 37, 42, 46 are incorrect, arbitrary, illegal and opposed to public policy.
17. The claims made by the plaintiff and the finding of the Arbitrator on the said claims are as follows :-
1. Claim No.1(a) :- Provision of extension of gallery towards right side upto plant room (above store room and passage) in lieu of flat roof slab catered in contract.
(a) The contention of the plaintiff is that though the Hon'ble Arbitrator had agreed that the Accepting Officer had taken decision in this matter without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff for being heard and that the decision was influenced by the recommendations of the CWE and DUR(C) and that decision was given after the contract was completed. Though, he has observed that there is discrepancy in the drawing and there is ambiguity in the drawings, their claim has not been considered properly by the Arbitrator. The plaintiff has further contended that though the defendant No.1 accepted their claim to the extent of 1,27,289/-, the Arbitrator has awarded only Rs. 39,048/- and it is totally arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts in law. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.97,005/- towards the same.
The contractor cannot be penalized for the Department's mistake.
(b) On perusing the award passed by the Arbitrator, it can be seen that with respect to Claim No.1(a) he has considered the submissions of both sides and has held that there is discrepancy in the drawing and opportunity was not given to the plaintiff for being heard on the matter. The Accepting Officer acted after his authority had ended and that too without following the process equity. He has further observed that the gallery and roof are clearly shown in the plan at Gallery level and front elevation. Hence, the stepped gallery and the related roof are required to be provided. It is fair to say that FRP roof and supporting structure for which details can be adopted from the other portion are included in the lumpsum. He has also considered that concrete required for stepped portion is also included. However, the extra reinforcement requirement could not have been imagined by Contractor contrary to the provision of structural drawing. By observing so, he has partially allowed the claim of the plaintiff and has awarded a sum of Rs.39,048/-. Sufficient reasons have been given by the Arbitrator for coming to the said conclusion. As such, it cannot be said that the said observation is illegal and opposed to public policy.
2. Claim No.1(c) :- Provision of certain miscellaneous fittings and fixtures under filtration systems including provision of 300 mm CI Pipe class 'B'.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that item No.1 of schedule 'A' Part XI at page 35 of the CA, only rubber lined diaphragm valve was included in the description. However, in the particular specification 5 Nos of 150 mm dia butterfly valves are mentioned. As per condition 6 A of General Conditions of contract IAFW - 2249, description in schedule 'A' supersedes description in particular specification. This aspect has been totally ignored by the Arbitrator in his award. As such, it is against public policy and amounts to misconduct. He has also contended that with respect to CI bends of 300 mm and 200 mm dia and foot valve, the Arbitrator has ignored the fact that a note has been given under serial No.8 of schedule 'A' Part XI at page 37 of the CA which states that the rate quoted shall be deemed to include the cost of required length of CI pipe and as per rate requirement. The plaintiff has also contended that with respect to 100 mm dia CI butter fly valves, the Hon'ble Arbitrator has made reference to schedule 'A' description of item No.8 of Part XI and it is incorrect. Pumpsets are mentioned under Sl. No. 2 of schedule 'A' Part XI at page 35 of CA and there is no 100 mm CI butterfly valves are specified. The Arbitrator has ignored the fact that while replying to quantification of claims, the defendant No.1 had agreed that the same are required to be paid by them. As such, the observation of the Arbitrator with regard to the same amounts to misconduct and arbitrariness. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,30,979/- with respect to the same.
(b) On perusing the finding given by the learned Arbitrator with respect to claim No.1(c) it can be seen that the Arbitrator has considered the submissions made by both sides and has held that for two pressure filters Contractor provided 10 Nos. butterfly valves. Hence, nothing is due to the claimant on his account. In the Department, colloquially bends and Tees are known and referred as "Specials". As both specials (bends) and foot valves are included in the schedule 'A', these are included in the lumpsum rate quoted by Contractor against item 8 of Sch 'A' - XI. Hence, nothing extra is due to the Contractor on his. It is apparent that 4 butterfly valves provided are for two to each pumpset as mentioned in the Sch 'A' description of item 8 of Sch 'A' - XI. Hence, nothing is due to the Contractor on the said account. The Contractor is due to the paid for the extra stretch of pipe line which he provided in addition to the description of Sch 'A' . By observing so the claim is partially allowed and a sum of Rs. 29,749/- is awarded. As such, a clear finding is given and there is no illegality in the said observation.
3. Claim No.2(d) :- Provision of stainless steel overflow gutter (16 nos.) fixed to long walls of swimming pool.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Arbitrator has ignored the specification given on page 199 to 205 of CA refer to schedule 'A' Part XI is not a lumpsum schedule but a measurable schedule. The item of stainless steel over flow channel gutter (16 nos.) is not mentioned any where in the schedule. Specification at page 204 of CA also describes that the same is required to be provided at location as shown on drawing. There is a mistake by the drafter and it should be strictly interpreted against the granter of the document who is the defendant No.1. While replying to quantification of claims the defendant No.1 has corrected the claim amount to Rs.5,740/- as against Rs.47,780/- claimed by them. However, the Arbitrator has totally rejected the claim. As such, it has to be set aside.
(b) On perusing the observation made by the Arbitrator with regard to the said claim No.2(d), it can be seen that the Arbitrator having considered the submissions of both the parties has held that contrary to what is stated in the PS clause, the location and detailed sketch of the granting (erroneously mentioned as gutters) are not indicated in the drawings. However, the same clause clearly gives the size, numbers and also the names of manufacturers from whom it is to be procured. As such, proper reasons are given for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff . As such, there is no legality in the said observation.
4. Claim No.2(e) :- Provision for increase in the size of the pressure sand filters.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the size of the filter was mentioned as 1250 mm dia high in the description in schedule 'A' serial No.1 page 35 of CA. Accordingly, the price was quoted in the Tender. While execution, the department asked them to provide size of the pressure filter of 2000 mm dia 2100 mm high as per the particular specification. This has been confirmed by the manufacturer also. But, the Hon'ble Arbitrator had come to a conclusion that the height of the cylindrical portion of the filter shown by the defendant No.1 is 1250 mm only. Though, the manufacturer has given it in writing that the height of the filter is 2100 mm, it is not considered. The pressure filter is not having only cylindrical portion. It has got two dish ends, one at the top and one at the bottom. The combination of all the total height of the pressure filter has to be taken in to consideration. The conclusion of the Arbitrator is that since filter capacity remained the same, no amount is payable towards this claim. The conclusion is totally biased, arbitrary and without proper understanding of the subject.
(b) On perusing the award passed by the Arbitrator with respect to claim No.2(e), it can be seen that the Hon'ble Arbitrator after considering the submissions of both sides has given a finding that the as per description of item No.1 of schedule 'A' capacity of filters is 1,20,000/- liters capable of filtering 9,60,000/- liters in 7 to 8 hours time. In the entire arguments, claimant had not brought out if he is made to provide higher capacity filter. Whereas UOI has stated that capacity of filter remained unaltered. UOI also showed at site that the height of the cylindrical portion of the filter is still 1250 mm only. Although, it reflects poorly on the drafting of specifications in Tender. Claimant can only make a claim, if he had provided a higher capacity filter which is not the case. As such, by observing that the cylindrical portion is of the dia 1250 mm, the learned Arbitrator has rejected the claim of the plaintiff. Further, it is clearly observed that the Claimant has not provided a higher capacity filter. As such, the reasoning is proper and there are no grounds to hold that the said observation is illegal and contrary to law.
5. Claim No.2(j) :- Provision of staging to support formwork to side walls of swimming pool and roof beams of gallery.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that formwork has to be provided as per their own design and it is their responsibility as to the strength of the structure. But, the defendant No.1 insisted that a platform is to be erected to the entire length and width of the swimming pool at a height of approx. 2 meters. This extra provision was not provided in the contract. However, on the instance of the defendant No.1 it was made and they had incurred extra costs. But, Arbitrator has stated that they have not provided any evidence to say that this is over provisioning. Though, the photographs were produced, the Arbitrator has refused to allow the claim. As such, his decision is Arbitrary and oppressive to them.
(b) On perusing the observation made by the the Arbitrator at page 17 it can be seen that he has given a finding that any formwork erected is required to be certified by the Engineer for appropriate construction and safety of the structure. Lack of appropriate formwork would lead to calamitous results to the personnel involved. As such, it was an engineering decision during the construction. Claimant has not produced any evidence to say that this was over provisioning. As such, the Arbitrator by considering the submissions made by both the sides and the materials on record has held that the claim is not sustainable. Hence, it cannot be said that the said decision is arbitrary and oppressive to the plaintiff .
6. Claim No.2(q) :- Provision of machine cut stone slab band for compound wall in lieu of dressed stone slab catered in the contract.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the contract provided for chisel dressing to edges of stone slab. However, as per the insistence and instructions of the defendant No.1 machine cutting to the edges was done, at an extra cost. Though, the Hon'ble Arbitrator has examined the granite slabs, he has totally rejected the claim which is wholly arbitrary, oppressive, biased and amounts to misconduct. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.48,984/- towards the same.
(b) On perusing the finding given by the Arbitrator at page 20 and 21 of the award with respect to claim No.2(q) it can be seen that Arbitrator has stated that he has visited the site and examined the granite slabs. Only the edges of exposed faces of the slabs are machine cut to a minor extent. Hence, he has considered that it is not beyond what is described in SSR. As such, by observing that slabs are machine cut to a minor extent, he has rejected the claim of the plaintiff. As such, the said findings with respect to claim No.2(q) cannot be termed as arbitrary, oppressive biased and amounts to misconduct.
7. Claim No.2(am) :- Provision RMC in lieu of PCC M15 for swimming pool base concrete.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that as per contract condition, the sub base of swimming pool was to be of PCC M15 100 mm thick. However, at the site respondent insisted that the sub base will also done with RMD work. Accordingly, the work was done after approval of CWE. The claim for extra payment for RMC work has been rejected. The defendant No.1 has contended that the RMC concrete is laid down by them on their free will and hence nothing is due to them. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has arrived at the decision that out of our own free will , we have provided PCC of RMC design mix because it apparently suited our convenience. This observation is also wholly false but tinged with bias and arbitrariness. The decision of the Arbitrator amounts to misconduct and the said finding is liable to be set aside.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that the Arbitrator has observed at para 184.2 page 33 that it is apparent from AGE (I) (P) letter 09 Dec 03 that Contractor of his own will provided PCC of RMC M-15 design mix it apparently suited his convenience as vast amounts of RMC concrete were further involved as per the contract specifications. There is no illegality in the said findings and as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
8. Claim No.2(an) :- Additional cost for bailing out water from swimming pool and balancing tank due to heavy rains.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the deviation order / approval for commencing and executing area drainage work has to be given by the GE. Inspite of requests, it was not heeded to. When it rained water and debris filled up the pool and damaged work already done. Extra expenditure incurred by them was only due to the wrong planning and late approval of drainage works. They cannot be penalized for the same. The rejection of their claim by the Arbitrator is erroneous, arbitrary and capricious.
(b) on perusing the order passed by the learned Arbitrator with respect to the said claim No.2(an) it can be seen that the learned Arbitrator has observed at page 33 and 34 that the plaintiff vide letter dated 13.05.2004 requested UOI for ordering the drain work at the earliest to avoid flooding of the swimming pool. UOI kept silent on the matter as can be seen from absence of any reply to this letter. However, the plaintiff letter dated 13.05.2004 itself states that the flooding had already taken place. This indicates that the claimant also lacked foresight. It is not clear from the supporting details of the claim as to what was the period of flooding which he is referring for claiming this amount. As such, the learned Arbitrator has observed that when the plaintiff has stated in his letter dated 13.05.2004 the flooding had already taken place, the said claim cannot be allowed. As such, the said observation is proper and it cannot be said that it is erroneous and capricious.
9. Claim No.3 :- Error in deviation orders
(a) The plaintiff has contended that there was no argument on the claim by both the parties. The Arbitrator upon his own reading and understanding has made an erroneous Judgment.
(b) On perusing the Arbitration award it can be seen that with respect to claim No.3, the Arbitrator has considered each and every deviation orders in detail and he has allowed the claim to an extent of Rs.88,618/- against claim No.3. Though, the plaintiff has contended that the said Judgment is erroneous, they have not pleaded as to how it is erroneous. Each and every deviation order has been considered and a finding has been given. As such, it cannot be held that the said observation is illegal and perverse.
10. Claim No.4 :- Additional cost incurred due to restriction and delaying payment of interim bills.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the amount awarded by the Hon'ble Arbitrator towards claim No.1 to 3 was Rs.8,80,881/-. On this, he has allowed rate of interest at 10.25% p.a. for a period of 10½ months. They had claimed certain amounts and the the interest has to be allowed.
(b) On perusing the award, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Arbitrator has awarded Rs.2,48,077/- towards interest by observing that the plaintiff is entitled interest at the rate of 10.25% p.a. for RAR No.3 for 20 days and for RAR No.11 for 10.5 months. It is also observed that he has laready considered the delay of RAR No.11 upto December 5 in the previous calculations. As such, a clear observation is made with regard to the interest and period of delay of RAR and there is no need for interference with regard to the same as the observation is neither illegal nor opposed to public policy.
11. Claim No.7 :- Additional cost incurred due to stoppage / suspension of work.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Arbitrator has observed that the defendant No.1 has caused several delays in not giving timely decisions. The amount assessed by the Arbitrator is at Rs.1,17,312/- (1% of the contract amount) and it is wholly insufficient and negligible. The actual delay caused by the defendant No.1 amounts to 694 days and extension granted was for only 120 days. As such, their claim has to be allowed.
(b) On perusing the award passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator, it can be seen that the Arbitrator has considered the submissions of both sides and has given a finding that it is a fact that UOI caused several delays in not giving timely decisions and it should have been avoided. Although, there is delay on various counts amounting to 694 days occurred, the contractor was granted extension of time up to 30.01.2005 for about 120 days. Accordingly, he had to accelerate his efforts. By observing so, he assessed such losses to be not less than 1% of the contract amount and allowed the claim to an extent of Rs.1,17,312/-. As such, this finding cannot be called as unreasonable or capricious.
12. Claim Nos. 8 and 9 :- Additional cost incurred due to idle charges of tools and plants and additional cost due to prolongation of work.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Arbitrator has agreed that all the delays for which extension of time granted are attributable to the respondent. The finding of the Arbitrator with regard to the said same is misconduct and arbitrary. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,50,687/- towards the same.
(b) On perusing the finding given by the learned Arbitrator with respect to claim Nos. 8 and 9, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Arbitrator has considered the submissions made by both sides and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3197-3168 of 2005 and the letter dated 15.02.2007 written by the plaintiff that there is delay in completion of contract work for various reasons and some of them or attributable to defendant No.1 and the Contractor seeks and obtains extension of time for execution on that account, he will not be entitled to claim compensation of any nature, on the ground of such delay. By observing so, the claim Nos. 8 and 9 have been rejected. As such, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said finding is given and hence it cannot be said that it is illegal.
13. Claim No.10 :- Additional cost due to variations beyond deviation limit.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that this claim is to be reviewed similar to claim No.4. The additional cost will be beyond the deviation limits agreed by the parties. Hence, it has to be enhanced to 7.5% towards other increases and overheads.
(b) The Arbitrator has observed that since the Contractor is paid escalation on this amount, further percentage of 7.5% only is justified towards other increases and overheads and has accepted the claim in part and has passed award of Rs.49,260/-. As such, on proper consideration of the contract amount and the deviations, the award with respect to the said claim has been passed. Hence, there is no illegality in the said finding.
14. Claim No.11 :- Additional cost due to completion certificate improperly refused.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the amount awarded by the arbitrator is Rs.55,000/- as against Rs.7,50,000/- claimed. Though, there is breach of contract, the Arbitrator has awarded only for enlargement of defects liability period and he has not imposed any penalty to the defendant No.1 for their breaches with respect to the same.
(b) On perusing the award, it can be seen that the Arbitrator has given a finding that the some of the losses suffered by them are not direct losses. Such losses are not proved by any direct evidence. It is a fact that the defect liability period is enlarged for a period of 5 ½ months. By taking losses of Rs.10,000/- per month an amount of Rs.55,000/- has been awarded. As such, there is no illegality in the said finding.
15. Claim No.12 :- Incorrect recoveries made by the respondent in the final bill.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that they had submitted final bill for an amount of Rs.1,44,39,554/- vide letter dated 08.08.2005. The defendant No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.4,91,316/- on 06.04.2006. The defendant No.1 had reduced certain amounts from their claim and made certain additional recoveries with regard to the same.
(b) It can be seen in the Arbitration award that the Arbitrator has given finding in detail with respect to the above claim from page Nos.48 to 53 and has awarded a sum of Rs.10,37,074/- to the plaintiff and finding is also given that if the plaintiff submits FDR's, the amount of Rs.1,01,000/- shall also be released. As such, the recoveries have been verified and an order has been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality in the said findings nor it is against the public policy.
16. Claim No.14 :- Costs
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Arbitrator has considered that it is a fit case where both parties should bear their costs. Since the defendant No.1 has breached their promise of the contract, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- which is the cost awarded in the award.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that Arbitrator has observed that the cost shall be borne by both the sides by considering the pleas putforth by both sides. The said finding is discretionary and it cannot be said that it is illegal or perverse.
17. Part A - D.O. No.36 :- Internal Finishes to entry passages.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that there was no finish catered in the contract for the entry passages. The defendant prepared a D.O. for additional provision of Ceramic tiles and they signed the same. Later, D.O. was unilaterally passed without their acceptance and consent. The defendant No.1 had fabricated the revised D.O. by making use of the last page of the earlier D.O. which was signed by them. The Arbitrator has ignored the same. Hence, it is necessary to set aside the arbitration award with regard to the same.
(b) It can be seen that the Arbitrator has observed in page 36 of the award that although Accepting Officer decision is not fairly exercised and there is no final and binding decision because there is no ambiguity, in general he agree that the finish should be same for deck walk and passages. Hence, nothing is due to the claimant on this account. As such, it is observed by the Arbitrator that finish should be same for deck walk and the passage. The plaintiff has not placed any materials to prove that the defendant No.1 has fabricated the revised D.O. As such, there is no illegality with respect to the finding on the said claim.
18. D.O. No.37 :- Additional reinforcement to floor beams of gallery.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the defendant No.1 altered the draft D.O. after getting their signatures by including certain 'omit items' which are not included in the contract. Such alterations are unilateral and not binding on them. The defendant No.1 had prepared a plus deviation order for Rs.13,398.80/-. After completion of the contract, the defendant No.1 revised the D.O. without their acceptance and added certain omit items which are not catered in the contract at all. They issued a minus D.O. for Rs.2285.93. Arbitrator without discussing any of the aspects with regard to the same has arrived at a conclusion that the D.O. was fairly prepared by the defendant No.1 with regard to the same.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that the Arbitrator by considering the materials placed before him as observed that nothing is extra is due to the plaintiff . The plaintiff has also not produced any materials to show that after obtaining their signature, certain omit items were included and alterations were made unilaterally. There is a clear finding by the Arbitrator that the D.O. is fairly made. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding.
19. D.O No. 46 :- Designer border tiles in change rooms and Toilet.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that though sufficient exhibits were produced before the Arbitrator to show that initially the defendant No.1 had agreed to prepare the star rate based on voucher, the same is not allowed by the Arbitrator. The conclusion is wholly erroneous. They are entitled for Rs.24,518/- with regard to the said claim.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that the Arbitrator has observed that on going through the D.O. he consider that the D.O. which was finalized in the end was fair. Hence, nothing extra is due on this account. As such, after considering the materials on record, the order has been passed and there is no illegality in the said finding.
20. Part D.O. No. 34 :- Solid block masonry drain in lien of PCC 1:5:10 sub case for drain for scum water and surface water.
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Arbitrator did not understand the claim at all. The Arbitrator has not given any reason for rejecting the said claim. He has also ignored the expenses incurred by them for drain of surface water and it show that there is non application of judicial mind. The decision arrived is arbitrary, oppressive and biased against them. They are entitled for a sum of Rs.90,334/- towards the same.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that the Arbitrator has observed at page No.37 that D.O. 34 prepared by UOI is reasonably accurate and nothing more is due to the claimant. As such, the Arbitrator has observed that the deviation order is accurate and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding as it is neither illegal nor opposed to public policy.
21. D.O. No. 42 :- Price adjustment for CRS steel
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Arbitrator has ignored the agreed conditions of the contract. Though, the steel was specified to be procured from TISCO or SAIL, since the said Companies could not supply the required quantity and specified sections of CRS steel, the Accepting Officer approved CRS steel procured from VSP without any price adjustment. Later, the defendant No.1 started demanding that extra cost should not be claimed. After the completion of the project, the defendant No.1 prepared a minus D.O. for Rs.82,091.31/- based on a quotation received from SAIL. As such, the finding on the said claim is not proper. The rate was adopted by the defendant based on the quotation dated February 2004 though the actual procurement was on 18 November.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that the Arbitrator has observed that the swimming pool requires TMT bars of SAIL or TISCO only as per contract. D.O. is accordingly prepared by UOI and as such nothing extra is due to the claimant on this account. As such, the Arbitrator has observed as per the agreement TMT bars of SAIL or TISCO had to be supplied and hence the defendant No.1 has considered the rate of SAIL. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with this finding also.
22. Error in Escalation charges :- Error in escalation changes (page 48 of award)
(a) The plaintiff has contended that the Record drawing for internal electrification and water supply external E/M services, wiring test sheets, earth test sheet are submitted by them. Hence, this is required to be reviewed similar to claim No. 4 and 10. However, the Arbitrator erred in holding that they have failed to establish that they have submitted the same. The said finding is perverse, arbitrary and wholly erroneous. Hence, the amount of Rs.7,500/- deducted is liable to be refunded.
(b) On perusing the award it can be seen that at page 48 and 49 of the award the Arbitrator has observed that the escalation amount due to the Contractor works out to Rs.1,15,304/- which is more than what is paid in the final bill. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,15,304/- is due to be paid in addition to the claimant. As such, it is observed that the plaintiff has received more than what is paid in the final bill. As such, there is no error on the face of the record with regard to the said claim.
18. As such, it can be seen that the Arbitrator has considered the documents and written submissions filed by both sides and has given a detailed reasoning with respect to each and every claim of the plaintiff. The learned Arbitrator has allowed many claims of the plaintiff which are acceptable and verifiable and he has rejected other claims by giving proper reasons. He has observed that several deviation of works have been carried out by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 has passed D.O. orders with regard to the same and has accepted several deviation works subsequent to finalizing of the final bill. He has also observed that the defendant No.1 has considered due changes and they have regularized the same. Hence, it cannot be said that the alleged observations and findings made by the learned Arbitrator are illegal on the face of it. Even the award regarding the interest is a finding on the facts. The learned Arbitrator has considered each and every aspect and the claims of the plaintiff in detail and after giving opportunity to both sides has passed a detailed order containing 54 pages and he has come to a proper conclusion. It is a well reasoned order and absolutely there is nothing on record to hold that the said award is arbitrary, patently illegal or opposed to Public Policy. There are also no materials to hold that the said Arbitration award is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to law. Each and every claim of the plaintiff has been considered in accordance with law and the claims which are reasonable have been allowed and the claims which are not sustainable have been rejected. As such, it cannot be said that the award is patently illegal and opposed to public policy. The Defendant No.1 has also filed an Arbitration suit in A.S.No.25/2007 which is also posted for Judgment along with this suit. In the said case, the plaintiff of this case has taken a contention in their objection that the allegation made by the defendant No.1 in the said case that the award passed by the 2 nd defendant is wholly illegal, contrary to the facts of the case and in law, arbitrary and passed under bias obligation, is false. They cannot take totally contrary stand with respect to the same dispute. Even otherwise, absolutely there are no materials to hold that the award passed by the defendant No.2 Arbitrator is opposed to public policy and it is patently illegal. The plaintiff has not made out any of the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated 26.02.2007 passed by the 2 nd defendant. Hence, I answer point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative.
19. Point No.3 :- In view of the above findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the following is made :-
O R DE R The suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.
Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of November 2019.) (Jaishankar) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
A N N EX U RE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS :-
NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :-
NIL WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS :-
NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANTS :-
NIL
(Jaishankar)
XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
the work carried out and claimed under this claim is as per approval of Department based on recommendations of the expert firm and as per directions of CE. This specification is not as per PS clause 42.9 of contract as contended by UOI. By observing that so the claim is partially allowed and sum of Rs. 44,375/- has been allowed. As such, it cannot be said that the said observation is illegal and contrary and opposed to public policy.
PO.CCH3