Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The respondent-Contractor also raised a claim for an amount spent by him on restoration of flood damaged works and construction of Bund. An amount of Rs. 24, 25,987/- was claimed by the respondent-Contractor under this head. He also raised a claim of Rs. 7, 75, 500/- on account of payments/deductions made from the running account bills. There was a separate claim laid for the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent- Contractor thus placed before the learned Arbitrator a total claim of Rs. 65,84,160/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

11. Interestingly, the petitioners did not complain specifically about the breach of the terms and conditions of the contract by the respondent- Contractor nor did they raise any counter claims before the learned arbitrator. It was submitted by the petitioners in their objections that upon termination of the contract, the Contractor was requested to attend their office for settlement of amounts, but he never turned up. Regarding the claims raised by the respondent-Contractor, the petitioners did not specifically deny the escalation charges claimed by the respondent- Contractor. However, it was empathetically stated that the amount claimed by the respondent-Contractor on account of restoration work had been paid in full. It was clarified that the estimates prepared by the department for restoration of the flood damaged works were not admission by the petitioners with regard to the entitlement of the respondent-Contractor to such estimated amounts. The petitioners also placed on record communications dated 16th December, 2000, 3rd April, 2001, 12th September, 2000, to substantiate the averments made in the objections.

12. In the communication dated 12th September, 2000, issued by the Executive Engineer concerned to the respondent-Contractor plea of 'force majeure' clause in the agreement was specifically raised to contend that the reconstruction of the damaged works due to floods was governed by the aforesaid clause and, therefore, same was not payable to the respondent- Contractor. The plea of delay in invoking the arbitration was though not specifically taken in the objections, but the same was raised at the time of arguments being a pure question of law. The parties also led their respective evidence before the learned arbitrator.

(ii) Whether the award on an amount of Rs. 25, 82,609/-

on account of restoration of flood damaged works in the presence of clause 21 of the agreement ('force majeure' clause) does not fall within the terms of submission to arbitration?

(iii) Whether the interest awarded by the arbitrator is contrary to statutory provisions of the Act and therefore renders the award against public policy of the State.