( 1 ) ALL these four cases arise out of the common judgment delivered in O. S. No. 731 of 1985 and O. P. No. 342 of 1985 in relation to one arbitration award and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) AN award was made by the arbitrator on 30-5-1985 allowing only claim Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the claimant-Contractor in respect of the earth work excavation and forming embankment of Kakatiya canal from K. M. 181/0 to K. M. 182/0. O. P. No. 342 of 1985 was filed by the State to set aside the award and O. S. No. 731 of 1985 was filed by the contractor to make the award the rule of the Court. Common judgment was delivered by the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad setting aside the award so far as claim No. 2 was concerned and upholding it so far as claim Nos. 1 and 5 were concerned. Both the cases were thus partly allowed and decreed. C. M. A. no. 770 of 1988 has been filed by the contractor against the judgment in O. P. No. 342 of 1985 and he has also filed CRP No. 3716 of 1988 against the judgment in O. S. No. 731 of 1985. Likewise, C. M. A. No. 907 of 1988 has been filed by the Government against the judgment in O. P. No. 342 of 1985 so far as it went against them and C. R. P. No. 1129 of 1993 has also been filed by the Government as against the judgment in O. S. No. 731 of 1985 so far as it went against them.

( 3 ) IN the present judgment the parties are referred to in the same description as they are found in C. M. A. No. 770 of 1988, the claimant-contractor being referred as the appellant and the Government being referred as the respondent.

( 4 ) THE case of the parties, in each case, is confined to Claim Nos. 1, 2 and 5 only. While it is argued by the appellant that the arbitrator s award in respect of Claim No. 2 should have been also made the rule of the Court, it is the case of the Government that the award should have been set aside in its entirety rejecting not only Claim No. 2, but also in respect of Claim Nos. 1 and 5.

( 5 ) SO far as Claim No. 2 is concerned, the award shows the claim as "payment of extra rates of work done beyond the agreement time". The claim on that count had been advanced as Rs. 12,63,629. 00. The arbitrator admitted the claim partly and made the award in that respect for sum of Rs. 3,37,505. 00. The learned I Addl. Judge considered the claim of both the parties and found the facts relating to the claim as being that the appellant had not completed the work within the agreed time for which it had been extended twice by the Department. Through his letters of 27-3-1980 and 22-6-1981, the appellant had sought extensions of time on the grounds that due to sky lab scare the labourers brought by him from outside had left the work spot about one and half months earlier than their scheduled departure, that due to shortage of fuel oils the progress was affected and that due to the limited supply of explosives the appellant could not progress earnestly which affected the progress of the work. In his second request for extension of time he mentioned the reasons as being the sky lab scare and that the reach from K. M. 181. 00 to 181. 500 was involved in rock excavation for which the required profiles took unduly long periods. On the first request, extension of time had been granted till 31-8-1980 through letter of 4-7-1980 wherein it was specifically stated that the grant of extension of time had no financial implication whatsoever. The second extension was granted through letter of 13-5-1983 also specifically mentioning that the grant of extension of time had no financial implication whatsoever to the Government. The learned I Addl. Judge rejected the claim of the appellant and set aside the award for Claim No. 2 taking the view that in the very orders of extension it had been made clear that it would have no financial burden on the Government and that if the appellant was not agreed, he should have stopped the work and should not have executed it. Evidently, the learned Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document