SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 208

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
P. RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY - Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. N.B.C.C. LTD. -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos.1393-1394 of 2003
Decided on : 05-03-2013

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 34 - Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 15, 16, 17, 30 and 33 - Rule 7 ,Karnataka High Court Rules - Public sector company - Pay any amount claim - Civil Appeals questioning common judgment and order passed by High Court of Karnataka Misc - First Appeal along with cross Objection wherein appeal of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd hereinafter referred to as ‘NBCC’) was partly allowed and award passed by the Arbitrator was modified in regard to claims and High Court set aside award regard to claim rejection of claims and award against claims are also Cross objection filed by contractor regarding grant of certain items of claims made by him is dismissed and consequently it is held that the contractor will entitled with interest at rate per annum from till date of deposit of payment by NBCC - Also amount paid by NBCC in pursuance of interim order passed by High Court will be adjusted to amounts payable and if excess has been received by the contractor then he shall repay same within three months to NBCC - This Order of High Court is under challenge these appeals urging various facts and legal contentions - For purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of parties the brief facts are stated hereunder –Held, Case does not lay down good law, we would like to direct that our decision shall only be prospective in operation which means that this decision shall not entitle any party nor shall it empower any court to reopen proceedings which have already become final. In other words law declared herein shall apply only to pending proceedings court and has considered the contention urged on behalf of NBCC that the rate of interest awarded is excessive and also the contention that there is no contract of payment of interest on the same and alternatively contended that interest rate should not normally exceed per annum - These contentions have been seriously contested by appellant’s counsel contending that award interest between annum on basis of bank lending rates should be allowed as NBCC itself has claimed interest at rate per annum on amount claimed from contractor - Court on contentious issues while examining claims allowed Arbitrator in award with reasons which is affirmed by civil court wherein certain claims have been rightly disallowed certain other claims accepted and yet some other claims modified High Court by adding certain amounts are based on sound legal principles and after coming to conclusion that findings of Arbitrator and court are erroneous and contrary to law - Therefore High Court has that impugned award passed by Arbitrator which was made rule of court by civil court erroneous in law and it amounts to misconduct - Accordingly High Court has rightly set aside certain claims of the contractor and affirmed the award and granted extra amount on certain claims - It has also interfered with the damages – Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.:- The appellant contractor filed these Civil Appeals questioning the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 29th August 2002 in Misc. First Appeal No. 4377 of 2000 (AA) alongwith cross Objection No.34/2001 wherein the appeal of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBCC’) was partly allowed and award passed by the Arbitrator was modified in regard to claims 1(a), (b), (c) and 2(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court set aside the award of Rs. 8,16,412/- in regard to claim Nos.1(a),(b), (c) and 2(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g). Also, the rejection of claims under 1(d) and 1(e) is upheld and award of Rs.13,050/- and 10,204/- against claims 2(c) and (d) are also upheld. Cross objection filed by the contractor regarding grant of certain items of claims made by him is dismissed and consequently it is held that the contractor will be entitled to Rs.9,01,871.53 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.12.1987 till the date of deposit of payment by NBCC. Also, the amount paid by the NBCC in pursuance of the interim order passed by the High Court will be adjusted to the amounts payable and if excess has been received by the contractor, then he shall repay the same within three months to NBCC. This Order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals urging various facts and legal contentions. For the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties the brief facts are stated hereunder.

2. NBCC is a public sector company with its headquarters in New Delhi and is engaged in the business of

(i) project management consultancy services for civil construction projects (ii) civil infrastructure for power sector and (iii) real estate development etc. It has 10 regional/zonal offices across the country, with one such zonal/regional office at Bangalore, Karnataka.

3. A notice was published in the newspapers by NBCC, Bangalore on 12.1.1985 with the purpose of inviting tenders for construction of five 5000 Metric Ton food storage godowns comprising of Group-I (Civil and Structural Works) and Group-II (internal and external electrification and sanitary work), structures at Bhimavaram, Phase II, West Godawari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the contractor submitted his tender for the said works and the offer of tender was accepted by NBCC.

4. It is the case of the contractor that in terms of the tender notification, percentage of rate for tender works of Group-I and item rate tenders for works of Group II referred to above were required to be submitted. The tender contained basic rate for work based on Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Delhi Schedule of Rates, 1981, which is called as ‘DSR-1981’ for brevity.

5. It is the case of the contractor that for any construction work, schedule of rates plays an important role in pre-construction stage like preparation of estimate. To meet this objective, CPWD is publishing DSR since 1931 on regular intervals based on the experiences and latest technologies which can be adopted in the construction sector. The DSR were revised many times in the subsequent years 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2010 based on the market rates of materials and labour prevailing during the period. The CPWD Manual is a reference document of CPWD and provides a basic frame work for planning, designing and execution of construction works in CPWD. He further contends that the offer made by the contractor pursuant to the tender notice was accepted and works were awarded in his favour by NBCC on the basis of DSR-1981 and the provisions of CPWD Works Manual apply with all vigor to the case in hand. The contractor entered into a detailed agreement with NBCC on 26.6.1985 incorporating therein certain terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. The following terms and conditions were agreed upon between the parties:

(a) The rates of









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top