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

1995 Supreme(AP) 318

D.H.NASIR, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Prasad and Company, K. S. Raju, Managing Partner, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Chittoor – Respondent


P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court/ Hyderabad in O. P. No. 124/84 which is an application Hied under Sections 30 and 33 of the arbitration Act by respondents 1 and 2 herein objecting to the award dated 1-10-1983 made by the arbitrator. The impugned judgment is a common judgment ni the aforesaid O. P. and O. S. No. l514/83 filed by the arbitrator under section 14 (2) of the Act. The arbitrator-a retired Chief Engineer was appointed by the Court on an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The award was partly set aside in so far as Claim No. 3 was concerned and the rest of the award was made the Rule of the Court. The Court awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

( 2 ) THE details relating to the disputed claims are: claim No. 2: Payment for the extra leads for rubble, sand and metal. Amount of claim: Rs. 14,69,423/ -. and the claim was partly allowed for Rs. 10,63,651/ -. Claim No. 3: Payment of escalation charges: As against the claim of rs. 47,00,000/-, the amount partly allowed was R



































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top