Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. By a letter dated 26th June 1982 the concerned department informed the appellant that the rate mentioned in the price schedule against item No. 49C for white washing was in fact Rs. 47.50 'per % sq.m.' as will be evident from any book of printed schedule of rates of Western Circle No. 1 of the PWD. It was further stated that because of an inadvertent typographical mistake, which was bona fide, the mark % did not appear at the relevant place of the price schedule to the tender.

5. The parties continued to exchange letters regarding the rate of said item No. 49C for the white washing work. It may be mentioned here that by a letter dated 6th August 1982 the concerned Executive Engineer informed the appellant that not item rate tender had been called for and the rate quoted by the appellant was for the whole amount put to tender and such whole amount had been worked out after taking into account the white washing item (item No. 49C of the tender) for which the estimated amount had been calculated at the rate of Rs. 47.50 per % sq.m. and not at the rate of Rs. 47.50 per sq.m. and this fact was evident from the records.

6. The appellant received the final payment under protest. For the white washing work of an area of 42,000 sq.m., a sum of Rs. 19,950/- was paid to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 47.50 per % sq.m. Then by a letter dated 27th December 1982 the appellant submitted a list of its outstanding claims. A total claim of Rs. 40,06,876.00 was made. In that claim, on account of balance of white washing charges a sum of Rs. 20,78,802.00 was included.

7. In reply the concerned department wrote a letter dated 2nd February 1983. It was stated in the said letter that as per Clause-2 of the notice inviting tender the printed schedule of rates of Western Circle-1 (PWD) for 1976-77 was a part of the tender document and it was mentioned in such printed schedule that rate of white washing would be 'per % sq.m.' and not 'per sq.m.'. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the appellant had given declaration (i.e. the last page of special terms and conditions and specifications attached with the tender) that the appellant had carefully gone through 'the Circle schedule' as defined in Clause-2 of the NIT and also the schedule of rates of the Western Circle-1 for building works, road works and carriage of materials and labour (for 1976-77) as referred to in the general conditions of the 'Circle schedule' and had agreed to accept the same as part and parcel of the contract in case his tender was accepted. The department further mentioned in that letter that the appellant was not entitled to take advantage of a genuine typographical mistake which had inadvertently crept into the price schedule to the tender.

10. On 23rd May, 1989, the Arbitrator made the award. The Arbitrator directed the State to pay a sum of Rs. 24,60,961.03p to the appellant by way of full and final settlement of all claims made by the appellant. The Arbitrator further directed payment of interest and cost. It may be mentioned here that the total claim made before the Arbitrator by the appellant was Rs. 40,06,876.80/-.

11. The reasons in support of the award, as recorded by the Arbitrator, were as follows:

"The respondent accepted that the work was completed on or about March 31, 1981 beyond the stipulated period after May 31, 1977 but according to them there was no justification for attribution of such delay on the part of the respondent. According to them, the drawings were ready in time and in any event the claimant did not raise any objection regarding non-availability of the drawing at the start of the work. The respondent, however, did not support their case by producing their suggested records. That apart there was no denial of any belated supply of drawings by the respondent as contended by the claimant. The respondent also accepted that there were alterations or revisions of the drawings after the work was started, but, according to them, the same were of minor nature and it was with the competency of the Engineer-in-charge to make such alteration or revision. However, no records were produced to show that such alteration was of minor nature as suggested. No categorical denial was also made in the counterstatement that such alteration did affect the progress of the work or for that dismantling of the work already done as per original scheme was necessitated. The respondent also accepted the contention of the claimant that the supply of materials like steel and cement could not be ensured in a planned manner. The respondent admitted that there were occupations of some portion of the building during the construction period but according to them this was done when such portion was complete in all respect. However, there was no categorical denial that such occupation did not cause any hinderance to the claimant for completing the work in time. The respondent, however, relied on correspondence to show that such delay was due to the inefficiency, laches and/or negligence on the part of the claimant and for that contended that the Government had to incur a loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the respondent claimed the said sum from the claimant. As regards the said item No. 49(C) the respondent argued with some force that if the quantity and the amount in column No. 6 are taken into consideration, it would be evident that the rate was Rs. 47.50 per 100 sq.mtr. Thus according to them, the rate in respect of the said item No. 49(C) shown in the agreement was due to typographical mistake. However, no original typed document was produced in the proceedings. I have also carefully gone through the said specific price schedule of probable items produced in the proceedings and found several deletion/corrections against various items but there was no such deletion or correction in item No. 49(C) as aforesaid. The record by itself does not clearly establish that such omission of figure '100' before sq. metre was due to typographical mistake as suggested by the respondent. That apart, the respondent admitted the receipt of protest letter dated 27.5.1982 issued by the claimant before presenting the final bill to them."

12. On 7th September 1989 the State filed the application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. That application for setting aside the said award was registered in this Court as Award case No. 485 of 1989.

13. It was contended in that application that the award was perverse and it was given by the Arbitrator by ignoring material documents on record, without applying his mind to the materials on record, and without any evidence adduced by the claimant in support of the claim. It was further contended that on the 8th sitting held on 15th May 1984 as many as six issues had been framed by the Arbitrator, and as such by granting the lump sum awarded and by not passing the award on the basis of issues framed, the Arbitrator acted illegally and committed misconduct. The further contention was that by failing to consider the relevant provisions of the contract document the Arbitrator in reality deliberately overlooked the material evidence while deciding the dispute. The State also contended that on the face of oral evidence witnesses and the provisions in the contract documents regarding applicability of Circle schedule rates for white washing, the Arbitrator acted perversely in allowing the absurd claim made by the claimant for white washing taking advantage of a trifle typographical mistake.