Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The building was admittedly completed in April, 1959. On or about October 7, 1959 the respondent made out the final bill wherein it claimed for the balance price of work by calculating the price of the additional work and the deviations and described the said claim as their claim under category "A". The respondent also put forward another claim by describing the same as claim under category "B". As stated above, under the terms of the said agreement the said architects were to give a certificate to enable the respondent to receive payment. On or about June 1, 1960 the said architects issued a certificate for payment of Rupees 3,70,632.44 paise in respect of the claim under category "A" and in respect of the claim under category "B" the said architects recommended the sum of Rupees 1,14,385.06 paise. The said architects recommended payments in respect of various items which were mentioned in their letter dated June 1, 1960 addressed to the petitioner. Out of the total sum so recommended for payment the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,107.00 and actually paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000.00 by leaving a balance sum of Rs. 107.00 but refused to pay the balance sum of Rupees 20.632.44 paise claimed under category "A". As regards category "B" the petitioner did not act in terms of the said recommendation of their architects and rejected the entire claim, of Rs. 1,14,385.06 paise.

4. The Formal contract was executed by and between the parties herein on or about October 26, 1960, i.e., long after the work was completed. The said formal contract provided various terms and conditions including the arbitration clause as follows:--

"30. Provided always that in case any dispute or difference shall arise between the employer, or the architects on his behalf, and the contractor, either during the progress of the works, or after the determination, abandonment or breach of the contract, as to the constructions of the contract or as to any matter or thing arising thereunder (except as to the matters left to the sole discretion of the architects under Clauses 1, 4, 5, 16, 19, 19A and 29, and as to the exercises by them under Clause 18 of the right to have any work opened up) or as to the witholding by the architects of any certificates to which the contractor may claim to be entitled, then either party shall forthwith give to the Other written notice of such dispute or difference, which notice shall specify the matters which are in dispute, and such dispute or difference of which such notice has been given, and no other, shall be and is hereby referred to the arbitration and final decision of the chief engineer C.P.W.D. department, Government of India if he is able and willing to act otherwise to some person to be mutually agreed upon between the contractor and the architects, and the award of such arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties. Such reference shall not be entered upon until after the completion, or alleged completion., of the works, or until three weeks or more shall have elapsed after the practical cessation of the works arising from any cause unless with the written consent of the employer or architects and the contractor. The arbitrator shall have power to open up, review and revise any certificate, opinion, decision, requisition or notice, save in regard to the said matters, expressly excepted above, and to determine all matters in dispute which shall be submitted to him and of which notice shall have been given as aforesaid. Upon, every and any such reference the costs of, and incidental to, the reference and award respectively, shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator who may determine the amount thereof, and shall direct by whom and to whom and in what manner the same shall be borne and paid. This submission shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, and any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force. The employer and contractor hereby also agree that arbitration under this clause shall be a condition precedent to any right of action under the contract with regard to the matters hereby expressly agreed to be so referred to arbitration."

5. Under the said contract the petitioner was described as the employer and the respondent was described as the contractors. Clauses 3 and 4 of the formal contract, inter alia, provided that the architects under the conditions of contract would mean Messrs. Balardie, Thompson and Matthews or such other person as might be named for this purpose by the employer at any time. The employer agreed that cement and steel as would be required to execute the said contract would be supplied to the contractors on their requisition duly certified by the said architects. The amount of money involved for such a purchase by the employer would be deducted and recovered at the rate of Rs. 100/- per ton for cement and Rs. 500/- per ton for steel inclusive of sales tax delivered at site. Under Clause 7 of the conditions of contract the contractors were required upon the request of the said architects to (furnish?) them with all the invoices, accounts receipts and other vouchers that they might be required in connection with the said contract. Clause 22 of the said conditions provided, inter alia, that the work would be completed not later than April 30, 1959. Clause 23 of the said conditions provided, inter alia, to the effect that if the contractors would fail to complete the work by the date mentioned in Clause 22 or within any extended time and if the architects would certify in writing under conditions mentioned therein to the effect that the works could reasonably have been completed by an earlier date than when it was so completed then the contractors would pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per week as agreed and liquidated damages for the period during which the said work would remain unfinished. Under Clause 27 of the said conditions the contractors would be entitled to payment under the certificates to be issued by the said architects to the contractors in the manner as provided therein. Under Clause 29 (a) of the conditions the contractors would be at liberty to determine the contract by notice in writing to the architects in case of non-payment of its dues under the certificate to be issued by the architects under certain conditions mentioned therein.

29. As regards the claims under category "B" Mr. Bhabra argued that the said architects made their recommendation to the employers for the payment of the said sum of Rs. 1,14,385.06p. The respondent put forward a claim which was higher than what was recommended by the said architects. The architects in their letter dated June 1, 1960 dealt with each individual item in details and gave reasons for such recommendation. As expert they had given their reasons and in respect of some of the items they had rejected the claim of the respondent and in respect of some others have reduced the figure as claimed. It is mentioned in the said recommendation that they had verified the books, vouchers, documents and bills in arriving at the said figures. The question is whether the arbitrator could rely on the said documents as a piece of evidence to arrive at his finding in making the award. Actually speaking, what was considered and in what manner the arbitrator considered the said evidence are matters of conjecture in view of the fact that he has not given reasons in the said award- Mr. Bhabra argued that, in any event the said architects were the agents of the employers and as such agents they recommended payment. The said letter dated June 1, 1960 was filed before the arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner as document No. 16. The said document was an admitted document before the arbitrator and was produced on behalf of the petitioner and as such the arbitrator had enough material to rely on such evidence to come to his finding in making the said award. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 2 of the petition where the petitioner pleaded that the tender was accepted by Messrs. Ballardie, Thompson & Matthews as agents for and on behalf of the said National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the fact remained that they were acting as the agents and that would also appear from the letter dated August 19, 1955 written by the said architects to the respondent whereby they on behalf of the said National Insurance Co. Ltd. accepted the tender and advised the respondent to start the work imme-diately.