ANIL R.DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
STATE OF ORISSA – Appellant
Versus
SAMANTARY CONSTN. PVT. LTD. – Respondent
Judgment :
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether any interference is called for with the award dated 29th June, 2003 on the basis of objections of the appellant-State of Orissa.
2. The Respondent-Company (“the Contractor”) was awarded the work of “Construction of Mahanadi Barrage on the Right Side from the Right Divide Wall including Right Head Regulator” vide Agreement dated 11th February, 1986 at approximate cost of Rs.5 crore. The project was to be completed by 11th November, 1987. However, within the said period only 24.99% work was executed. Further extension of time was granted upto 21st March, 1988. Till then, only 36.81% of the work was executed. In these circumstances, vide letter dated 21st April, 1988, the contract was terminated under Clause 46 of the General Conditions of Contract. The work executed till then was only 47.67%.
3. The Contractor made a claim for Rs.6.99 crore towards its dues. The dispute was referred to the Arbitration. Retired Justice B.K. Behera (‘the Arbitrator’) vide award dated 29th June, 2003 upheld the claim of
M/s. Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala
Coimbatore Distt. Podu Thozillar Samgam v. Balasubramania Foundry
State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co.
Bhagbati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan
ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd.
P.R. Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.