- (1.)THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1/9/2005 passed in O. P. No. 1717 of 2003 on the file of xiv Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunderthe learned Additional Chief judge dismissed the application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, (for short, 'the Act' ).
(2.)THE parties entered into a contract for proposed repairs to the cess and widening of bank between KMS 138-155 in Vikarabad-Parli Section of South Central Railway on 17/2/1992. The date of completion of the work was 16-8-1992. The value of the contract was Rs. 9,22,200/ -. The General Conditions of Contract (for short "gcc") formed part of the agreement that was entered into between the parties. The contractor was to deposit a sum of Rs. 53,610/- towards security deposit, but at the request of the Contractor (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant') it was agreed to deduct it from the running bills. The work comprises of earthwork of 17400 cubic metres in the embankment to be obtained from quarries outside the Railway land limits. On 1-10-1992 the Claimant requested for extension of time upto 31-3-1993 and extension was accordingly granted. As the work could not be completed within the extended time, the Claimant requested further extension of time upto 30-9-1993 which request was considered by South Central railway (hereinafter referred to as 'the department') and extended the time. Yet another extension was requested upto 30-3-1994. But the extension was granted by the Department upto 31-12-1993. Thereafter, the Claimant kept quiet. It was only on 26-4-1996 the Claimant sought for further extension of time upto 31-12-1996, which was also considered by the Department. As on 21-5-1996 the Claimant completed 60% of the work. The Claimant by letter dated 21/8/2001 requested the Department to release the payment for the work done so far. As he did not receive any reply, he requested the Department by letter dated 1/11/2001 either to settle his claim or to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator. Finding no response from the Department, he approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 11 (6)of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. His application came to be allowed appointing the 3rd respondent herein as the sole arbitrator, by order dated 19-8-2002. The claimant submitted claims statement before the arbitrator claiming Rs. 14,81,025/- under various heads as shown hereunder: JUDGEMENT_535_ALT2_2008Html1.htm
(3.)THE Department filed counter resisting the claims made by the Claimant. It is pleaded in the counter that the Claimant in spite of granting liberal extensions of time could not show any progress in the work. Measurements of the earthwork executed by the Claimant were taken in May, 1996. Total quantity of the work done by the Claimant was 5223. 765 cubic metres, out of which payment for 4000 cubic metres was already arranged. Out of the balance of 1,223. 765 cubic metres, payment for 1,000 cubic metres was arranged under CC/3 Bill in May, 1996. As the Claimant failed to carry out the balance work, which was considerable, the payment for 223. 765 cubic metres was not arranged. The department further pleaded in the counter that the claim of the Claimant was barred by limitation as the Claimant kept quiet since may, 1996 and put in claims only on 1-11-2001.