Madhya Pradesh High Court
D.A.Murjani vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951
1 CR-829-2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 829 of 2002
D.A.MURJANI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This Civil Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against the award dated 13.02.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 49/1995, whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the Reference filed by the petitioner.
2. The contract for the construction of the New Judicial Court Building at Bhind, along with water supply and sanitary fittings, was awarded to the petitioner under Agreement No. 22/86-87. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 20.96 lakhs at 42.6% above the C.S.R. The stipulated period for completion was 18 months, excluding the rainy season. The work order was issued on 07.06.1986, and accordingly, the stipulated date of completion was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 2 CR-829-2002 06.12.1988. The petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated period. According to the petitioner, the delay occurred due to the respondent's failure to furnish structural designs and drawings, layout, electrification details, intermittent allotment of additional work, short supply of cement, and absence of formal extension orders. The work was ultimately completed in March 1990, as reflected in the Memo dated 29.03.1990 issued by respondent No. 4. The total value of work executed by the petitioner amounted to Rs. 40.75 lakhs. While granting extensions, the department did not levy any penalty upon the petitioner.
3. By the impugned award dated 13.02.2002, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claims Rs.1,89,6000/-relating to infructuous overheads, Rs.94,800/-loss of profitability , Rs.35,650/-loss due to alleged wrong payment for brick work, Rs.7,560/- overlaps in reinforcement on account of delayed designs of columns and plinth beams, Rs.9650/- loss due to sanction of low rate for lift of timber formwork, Rs.67,560/-loss due to sanction of low rate for cofferdam filling, Rs.52,750 refund of royalty, and Rs.10,620/- escalation on the cost of work for which payment had not been made. However, allowed the claim Rs. 14,537/- for refund of security deposit and interest on the withheld security deposit for the period from 06.09.1993 to 06.07.1996, but disallowed interest on the security deposit.
4. It is submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in the revision that finding of the Tribunal on facts and law regarding the claims relating to loss caused due to delay in furnishing structural drawings, designs, layout, absence of formal extension orders, and intermittent allotment of additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 3 CR-829-2002 work is perverse. The evidence on record clearly established a delay of 195 days in furnishing drawings and designs, which the Tribunal failed to recognize. The finding of the Tribunal that the work did not suffer due to delay in supply of structural drawings and details is wholly perverse. The dates taken by the Tribunal for execution of excavation, steel reinforcement, footings and columns up to plinth, excavation for plinth beam and concreting thereof are based merely on measurement book entries and not on actual execution. The Tribunal misconduct itself by ignoring the evidence led by the petitioner. Drawings and designs ought to have been supplied in advance to enable necessary preparation. There was additional delay of three months in painting due to default in electrical work being executed by another agency, and a further delay of nineteen months due to additional work of tiles, culvert etc., which the Tribunal failed to consider. The Tribunal committed serious error in not considering letters Ex. P-3 to P-7, wherein delay has either been admitted by the non-applicant or clearly shown to be attributable to the respondents.
5. The question for determine the controversy between the parties are that. ;-
(i) Whether the finding of tribunal is perverse on record?
Claim No.1 -
6. It is mentioned by the petitioner in the revision that evidence on record total delay of 195 days in furnishing drawings & designs, further delay of 3 months in painting due to default in electrical work. Electrical work was being done by another agency and there was further delay of 19 months due Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 4 CR-829-2002 to additional work of tiles, culvert, etc. Letters Ex.P.3 to P.7 where in delay has either been accepted by the non-applicant or show delay on the part of the respondents. Suspense also hinders the progress of work. Delay in granting extension had delay the work. The additional work also hinderance the normal working and cause delay. Non-applicant No.4 admitting in letter (Ex.P.3) the delay on the part of the department recommended for extension without imposing penalty. The finding of Tribunal that delay was attributable to the respondents is perverse and contrary to evidence on record.
7. Finding of learned tribunal is that the record Art- P Site Order Books the lay-out was given on 11/6/1986 and the petitioner has also signed it, since, the work order was issued on 7/6/1986 and there was no delay in given the lay-out. The GAD for this work were prepared by chief Architect and discuses on 10-10-1986 and attached with NIT, as far as structural designs are concerned, we have gone through record and table of the work done of excavation of footings columns, form work of fixing of reinforcement and concreting one as given in book. it is seen that excavation of foundations are done from 8.7-1986 to 18-8-1986, during rainy Season which is excluded from the time of completions. Similarly the foundation concrete of footings columns and plinth bees are casted between 14-7-1986 to 7-l2-1986. Similarly, other concrete work was done for the ground floor and first floor, looking to the above we are of the opinion that the work did not suffer due to supply of structural drawing and details hence, we reject this plea of the petitioner.
8. We perused the record, letter No. 2167 dated 29.03.1990 (Ex. P/3), Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 5 CR-829-2002 written by the Executive Engineer, PWD Division Bhind, to the Superintending Engineer, Gwalior, contains a recommendation for payment for the work executed during the period from 06.12.1988 to 05.03.1989, without payment of compensation. Letter No. 888 dated 26.06.1991, written by the Assistant Engineer, PWD Sub-Division Bhind, to the Executive Engineer, PWD Division Bhind, states the reasons for the delay in execution of the work. An annexure was enclosed, in which the Assistant Engineer stated that the delay was attributable to the Department. The reasons mentioned were: 1. Non-providing of standard design in time from 08.11.1988 to 05.06.1989. 2. Additional work involving ICC 1:2:4, plain cement work, and tiles during the period from 06.06.1989 to 31.12.1989. 3. Non-supply of cement in time, along with additional work related to the construction of drainage, septic tank, and culvert during the period from 01.01.1990 to 31.03.1990. The total period of delay was one year, three months, and twenty-five days. The Assistant Engineer attributed the delay and the liability to the Department, however, the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer rejected the findings of the Assistant Engineer's report. In our opinion the submission of petitioner is not acceptable that respondent had admitted the delay attributable to respondent.
9. Learned Tribunal has considered all contention of the petitioner in detailed, we have also considered all facts rose in argument. The total delay to finalize the work is 18 month. There is no evidence the total work on side was stopped due to delay on the part of the respondent. The work of contract was continued during the period which is raised in appeal. Therefore the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 6 CR-829-2002 finding on part of delay is given on sound reasons.
10. Finding of learned Tribunal is that the respondents are not responsible for the delay in the work. Moreover, the work was taken by Shri D.A. Murjani in his individual name. It has also been seen that the firm M/s Laxmi Construction Co. was registered by the Registrar of firms at S.No.833 on 24.09.1987 Ex. P.140. The contract was taken prior to the registration of firm of which Mr. D.A. Murjani is a partner. Hence, firm's income tax return has no meaning as far as this contract is concerned. Even salary vouchers are for the period from 01.06.1986 to 30.07.1987 i.e. for the period prior to the registration of the firm. These returns and vouchers show only after thought of the petitioner to prove the overheads. Since the work was delayed due to additional work and other reasons for which respondents are not responsible and the petitioner has also not submitted any proof of incurring excess overhead charges. Hence, we reject his claim for infructuous overheads.
11. Learned tribunal has considered all evidence produced before the tribunal and given the conclusion to not accepting the profits and losses on the ground of the income tax returned. Petitioner failed to produce the evidence regarding the actual profits and losses bear due to delay. The finding of the tribunal is seemed to be corrects., no perversity is found on the finding on record.
Claim No.2
12. It is submitted that the finding that no proof of loss of profit was submitted is contrary to record. Evidence duly proved by the petitioner regarding loss of profit and overheads (Ex. P-70, P-141 to P-144, Ex. P-146, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 7 CR-829-2002 P-147, P-160 to P-163, Articles 9 to 11) was ignored. The documents show approx. 9% profit earned and 15% overhead expenditure, though only Rs. 94,800/- (around 3% of cost) was claimed.
13. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not considering the balance sheet and income-tax assessment order of M/s Laxmi Construction Company, the partnership firm of which the petitioner is a partner, though the work was executed by the said firm. The Tribunal ignored material documents including the partnership deed (Ex. P-139) and Ex. P-148 to Ex. P-154 showing transfer of amounts to the partnership firm. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 1,89,600/- towards loss of overheads and committed material irregularity by not considering account books, balance sheets, income-tax returns and assessment orders (Ex. P-160 to P-163, P-141 to P-144, Article 9 & 10 P-70, Article 11, P-146, P-147). The Tribunal ignored the fact that the partnership was constituted on 22.07.1985 and became effective from 01.08.1985 (Ex. P-139).
14. We perused the record; the work order was awarded to the petitioner not to the partnership firm of the petitioner. Article p 139 is the partnership deed of the firm which was executed on 31/07/1985. The work was not awarded to the firm therefore petitioner not take a advantage of income tax return of the firms. Ex. P 140 registration certificate of firm dated 24//9/19878, and Ex.141 to 144, 146 to 147, 160 to 163 are the documents of the firm. All document not related to the individual to the petitioner therefore tribunal righty declined to consider that document to decide the profits of the petitioner from the disputed work order. Secondly, a letter Ex. P /57 written Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 8 CR-829-2002 by the petitioner to the Executive engineer for providing drawing of the building on 15/05/1987. That letter does not support the argument of the petitioner because the work was completed excavation of foundations are done from 8.7-1986 to 18-8-1986, during rainy Season which is excluded from the time of completions. Similarly the foundation concrete of footings columns and plinth bees are casted between 14-7-1986 to 7-l2-1986. Therefore it is clearly shown that document was taken in to consideration by the tribunal. The finding of the tribunal is not to be perverse of the record. 1 5 . In Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 375, the Apex Court has held that we have briefly referred to the principle applicable for computing the claim for compensation/damages in case of partial prevention i.e. where the breach by the employer is not fundamental and does not entitle the builder/contractor to cease the work, or, being fundamental, is not treated as repudiation by the builder/contractor. Measure of compensation/damages in such cases is the loss of profit arising from reduced profitability or added expense of the work carried out. [See Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts (10th Edn.) pp. 450, 596.] In a given case, where there is a fundamental breach by the employer, albeit, the builder/contractor does not immediately elect to treat the contract as repudiated, he may still be entitled to raise a claim for loss of profit on the uncompleted work. Offsite expenses or overheads are all administrative or executive costs incidental to the management supervision or capital outlay as distinguished from operating charges. These charges cannot be fairly charged to one stream of work or job, and rather be Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 9 CR-829-2002 distributed as they relate to the general business or the work of the contractor/builder being undertaken or to be undertaken, as the overheads are relatable to the builder/contractor's business in entirety.
16. In Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366 the Apex Court has held that that ordinarily, when the completion of a contract is delayed and the contractor claims that she/he has suffered a loss arising from depletion of her/his income from the job and hence turnover of her/his business, and also for the overheads in the form of workforce expenses which could have been deployed in other contracts, the claims to bear any persuasion before the arbitrator or a court of law, the builder/contractor has to prove that there was other work available that he would have secured if not for the delay, by producing invitations to tender which was declined due to insufficient capacity to undertake other work. The same may also be proven from the books of accounts to demonstrate a drop in turnover and establish that this result is from the particular delay rather than from extraneous causes. If loss of turnover resulting from delay is not established, it is merely a delay in receipt of money, and as such, the builder/contractor is only entitled to interest on the capital employed and not the profit, which should be paid.
17. Revisional power of High court has been conferred under section 19 of the M.P Madhyastam adhiniyam 1988 as under-19. High Court's power of revision.-- 1 [(1) The High Court may suo motu at any time or on an application for revision made to it within three months of the award by an aggrieved party, call for the record of any case in which an award has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 10 CR-829-2002 made under this Act by issuing a requisition to the Tribunal and upon receipt of such requisition, the Tribunal shall send or cause to be sent to that Court the concerned award and record thereof : Provided that any application for revision may be admitted after the prescribed period of three months, if the applicant satisfies the High Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the revision with such period. Explanation.-- The fact that the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment or the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this subsection.] (2) If it appears to the High Court that the Tribunal--
(a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with material irregularity; or
(d) has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or
(e) has made an award which is invalid or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
(3) The High Court shall in deciding any revision under this section exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as far as may be, as it does in deciding a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No.5 of 1908). 1 Subs. by M.P. Act No.19 of 2005 (w.e.f. 29.8.2005). (4) The High Court shall cause a copy of its order in revision to be certified to the Tribunal. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, an award shall Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951
11 CR-829-2002 include an 'interim' award.
18. Finding of learned tribunal is that petitioner has claimed 50% of loss due to infructuous overheads of Rs.1,89,600/- as loss of profitability. We have already held above that respondents are not responsible for delay in work and rejected the claim of infructuous overhead. Petitioner has also not submitted any proof of loss and profits by his own turnover. If loss of turnover resulting from delay is not established, it is merely a delay in receipt of money, the builder/contractor is not entitled to profit. Therefore finding of the tribunal does not be seen perverse the record.
Claim No.3-
19. It is also mentioned that the finding denying the claim of Rs. 34,650/- for brick work using British-size bricks is illegal, as the agreement permitted use of British-size bricks where metric bricks were unavailable. Measurements were recorded in British system, and Ex. P-14 recommended payments accordingly. It is urged that metric-size bricks are not manufactured in Bhind region, and there is no evidence of availability. Hence, payment should have been made on actual recorded measurements.
20. Clause 6-5-of the agreement regarding delay in supply in the materials are not supplied in time, the contractor will not be allowed any claim for any loss, which may be caused to him, but only extension of time will be given at the discretion of the Executive Engineer and superintending engineer Gwalior. If applied for by the contractor before the expiry of the contract.
21. Finding of learned tribunal is that it is clear that the provisions of C.S.R. will take precedence over the schedule of specification attached with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 12 CR-829-2002 agreement. Looking to this clear provision of the C.S.R. the respondents were quite justified in reducing the quantity of 1 brick wall by assuming 20 cm. thicknesses in place of 23 cm. and 10 cm. in place of 11.5 cm for ½ brick wall. There is nothing wrong if extra payment already made upto third running bill was adjusted or recovered while making payment of later bills. We, therefore, reject this claim of the petitioner.
22. The finding of the learned tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence, in revision power, reapplication of the evidence is not permissible. It is well settled position that It is well settled position that a provisional court's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is limited to reviewing an Arbitral Tribunal's order for specific errors, such as exercising jurisdiction not vested, failing to exercise jurisdiction, or acting with material irregularity. The court can only interfere if there is a jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity, as detailed in the Act.
Claim No.5 -
23. It is argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim relating to overlaps in reinforcement, which were necessitated due to delay in providing design details. Extra steel was used pursuant to verbal instructions of the non-applicants. Had the designs been timely supplied, overlapping could have been avoided, and the petitioner is entitled to the extra cost incurred. The finding of the learned tribunal is based of proper appreciation of evidence, in revision power, reapplication of the evidence is not permissible.
24. As per Agreement Clause 5.4.3, the contractor should use bricks Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 13 CR-829-2002 manufactured to metric measurements as far as possible. Clause 5.4.4 states that all timber used in woodwork for all new works must be properly seasoned. Clause 2.6 provides that, in the case of important buildings, mechanical seasoning should be done in a good seasoning plant. In case the contractor does not procure properly seasoned wood, he may be asked to get it seasoned in a plant at his own expense. However, no certificate is required where no additional rate is paid. Clause 2.6 relates to non-schedule items of work. During the execution of the work, there is a likelihood of such items of work which do not find a place in the current schedule of rates referred to above in respect of percentage rate contracts, or such items which are given in the schedule of items in respect of item rate contracts for which the contractor has not quoted his rates. The contractor will have to carry out these items of work.The rates of such items of work, which do not find a place in the current schedule of rates referred to above in respect of percentage rate contracts, or such items in respect of item rate contracts, shall be decided by the Superintending Engineer, Gwalior, and the decision shall be binding on the contractor. The quantum of such work will not exceed 10% of the amount of the contract as accepted by the department and the contractor.
25. We are of the opinion that the provision in C.S.R. clearly shows that rates for reinforcement include overlaps also and therefore, overlaps was not to be measured and paid separately. Moreover, it is unbelievable that the petitioner could not extend reinforcement bars without cutting them in absence of designs for columns because no such orders directing the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 14 CR-829-2002 petitioner to cut - reinforcement bars in the absence of design were filed by the petitioner. We have also held above that no delay occurred due to furnishing of structural drawings. Looking to these facts, we are of the opinion that the respondents correctly recorded the finished measurements and not separately recorded the measurements of overlaps. Under these circumstances, we reject this claim of the petitioner. The finding of the learned tribunal is base of proper appreciation of evidence, in revisional power; reapplication of the evidence is not permissible.no perversity is found on the finding on record.
Claim No.6-
26. It is mentioned in the revision that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant was entitled to escalation on payments becoming due on correct measurements. Tribunal ought to have determined the rates for lift of timber formwork, as the rates sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer were arbitrary. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide such rates even where the agreement declared the Engineer's decision to be final. Clause 4.3-of the agreement regarding using the Bricks, timber, ect. the contractor should use the bricks manufactured on the metric measures as far as possible.
27. We have seen that the work was executed by the petitioner without settling the rates and he was paid at the rate sanctioned by the respondent S.E. In such case the S.E.'s decision is final and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get anything extra on this account. Accordingly, we reject this claim. It is not challenged that the finding about the payment for escalation already been given to the claimant. Therefore the finding of the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 15 CR-829-2002 tribunal is base of proper appreciation of evidence, in revision power, reapplication of the evidence is not permissible. , no perversity is found on the finding on record.
Claim No.7-
28. It is mentioned in the revision that the Tribunal committed grave error in not awarding the claimed rates for coffered ceiling work (Ex. P-57). There is no evidence that the rates were excessive. The department never informed the petitioner regarding high rates prior to execution. Hence, the claim of Rs. 67,560/- ought to have been allowed.
29. We have already dealt that the rates of extra item in para 18, and held that the work was executed by the petitioner without settling the rates and that he was paid at the rates sanctioned by the respondent S.E. In such case the S.E.s; decision is final, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get anything extra on this account, hence we reject this claim. We have found that from the record the work was executed by the petitioner without settling the rates, and rate was settled by executive engineer and according to that payment was done to the contractor. Therefore the finding given by tribunal is correct. , no perversity is found on the finding on record. Claim No.8-
30. It is mentioned in the revision that that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the refund of royalty amounting to Rs. 52,750/-, despite clause 36 of the agreement and clause 11 of the CSR mandating refund. The finding that royalty was included in the rates is perverse.
31. Clause 36 reproduced here regarding the refund policy of royalty, of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 16 CR-829-2002 agreement says--that all quarry fees, royalties, octori duties and ground rent for sacking materials, if any should be paid by the contractor, who will, however, be entitled to a refund of such of the charges as are permissible under the rules, after obtaining a certificate from the Engineer - in- Charge, that the material for use on Government work. In the case of quarries, where extraction of minor minerals is done by the contractor, after taking permit from the collector, the contractor will get refund of royalty charges, after the work is completed and after obtaining a certificate from the Executive Engineer that the materials 'extracted by the contractor have been used on Government work. In the case of quarries which have been leased out (Trade quarries) the contractor should make all payments of royalty charges at Government approved rates. These royalty charges will also be- refunded to the contractor on production of actual cash vouchers on the certificate obtained from the Executive Engineer that this materials obtained by the contractor from the leased: quarries have been used on Government work Only, In the First Instance, royalty charges will be refunded by the Collector and in the Second instance royalty charges will be refunded by the Executive Engineer. In the case of any dispute about payment of royalty charges, decision of the superintendent -Engineer will be final.
32. Finding of learned tribunal is that We have gone through the Ex.P-60 to Ex.P-63. The petitioner has submitted the royalty receipts of constructions of composite Collectorate building and new Judicial Court Building at Bhind. Royalty receipts in Ex.P 60 is of Rs.65,860.33, in Ex. P 61 Rs.1,03,430/, - Ex.P.62 Rs. 17,193 and Ex. P.63 Rs.8, 849/-, totaling Rs.1,95,353/-.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 17 CR-829-2002 However, the petitioner has claimed only Rs.52,750/-. As per clause 36 of the agreement, the contractor is entitled to get refund of royalty charges paid by him for extraction of minor minerals. However, note 1 of C.S.R. is very specific that the rates provided in the schedule of rates include cost of all materials inclusive of all charges like duty. Octri, taxes, royalty charges, etc. as may be applicable. Since the rates are inclusive of royalty so royalty is not separately payable to the petitioner. Petitioner also failed to prove that how much royalty charges have been paid by him for the materials used by him on this work separately. Under such circumstances, we reject this claim of the petitioner.
33. There is no evidence in what quantity mineral was used in construction. No report and measurement of executive engineer regarding the use of minerals therefore tribunal has rightly reject the claim on that ground, no perversity is found on the finding on record.
Claim No.10-
34. That the Tribunal wrongly denied interest on withheld amounts, which should have been awarded based on the evidence on record. Finding of learned tribunal is that in this letter he claimed interest on withheld amount of Rs.14,537/-. He has not claimed any interest on security deposit of Rs.19,335/-, hence we allow the petitioner ante lite interest on Rs.14,537/- amounting to Rs. 3,198/- w.e.f. 06.09.1993 to 06.07.1995, the date on which this reference petition is filed in this Tribunal. Since, the petitioner has not claimed any interest on security deposit hence, we disallow the interest on security deposit amounting to Rs.19,335/-. There is no reason to disbelieve Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 18 CR-829-2002 on the finding of tribunal, tribunal has rightly awarded the interest from the date when the claim for refund security deposit was made. Claim No.11-
35. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant was entitled to escalation on payments becoming due on correct measurements. Tribunal ought to have determined the rates for lift of timber formwork, as the rates sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer were arbitrary. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide such rates even where the agreement declared the Engineer's decision to be final.
36. Finding of learned tribunal is that Petitioners claim Rs.10,620/- as escalation on these amounts. The respondents have stated that they have paid escalation for the work done up to the final bill and hence, no escalation is due to the petitioner. Finding of learned tribunal is that escalation has been paid for the petitioner in final bill and no escalation is due to him now. There is no other measurement on record therefore the escalation price already be given on the available measurement, therefore Finding is not perverse on record.
37. Having examined the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that there are no jurisdictional errors, acts of misconduct or events of invalidity or impropriety in the conduct of proceedings by the Arbitrator in passing the award, For this reason, this court refrained from exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(2) by not interfering with the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. For the reasons stated above, the Civil revision arising out in Reference Case No.49/1995 of award dated 13/02/2000 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67951 19 CR-829-2002 Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal Bhopal is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The Record of tribunal be sent back along with the copy of order within two week.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
12/17/2025 2:39:50 PM