A contractor is estopped from claiming compensation for work done beyond the agreement period if he has given an undertaking not to claim any compensation.

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) C. M. A. No. 241 of 1991 and CRP 593/91 are preferred against the common judgment in O. S. No. 374 of 1987 and O. P. No. 95 of 1988 (on the file of the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam ). The appeal arises outof O. P. No. 95 of 1988 filed by the State under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award dated 27-7-1987 passed by a panel of arbitrators consisting of three departmental officials (1) Chief Engineer, (2) Deputy Secretary to Government, and (3) Director of Accounts, in respect of disputes concerning the contract agreement No. 23 / 81-82. The Revision Petition filed by the State arises out of the suit filed under Section 14 (2) with a prayer to confirm the award passed by the panel of Arbitrators and to make it a Rule of Court and to pass a decree for rs. 15,00,085/- with interest.

( 2 ) THE contractor G. Kondala Rao who was the plaintiff in the suit and respondent in the O. P. died during the pendency of the proceedings in the lower court. Hence his legal representatives are brought on record.

( 3 ) THE work which is the subject-matter of the agreement dated 26-9-1981 was one of excavation of water supply canal from K. Ms. 12. 260 to 12. 880 (including lining 10th reach) within the jurisdiction of Y. R. P. Circle, visakhapatnam. The value of the contract was Rs. 25,81,574 /- and the work had to be completed within 12 months from the date of handing over the site. The site was handed over on 8-10-1981. After a number of extensions, the work was ultimately completed in July, 1986.

( 4 ) THE dispute is in regard to Claim No. III which is divisible into two parts- (1) The differential rates repayable on account of classification of soils; (2) Escalation of rates for the work done beyond the agreement period.

( 5 ) UNDER Claim No. III, the contractor claimed Rs. 21,97,000 / -. Though Claim no. III includes another item, it is no longer in dispute.

( 6 ) THE arbitrators though accepted the claim of the contractor on these two items forming part of Claim No. III, they did not award any specific amount. Regarding classification of soils, the arbitrators directed payment to be made to the contractor as per the classification made jointly by the EE and EE (Quality control ). With regard to the claim for escalation of rates, the arbitrators directed that the contractor shall be paid current SSR (Standard Schedule of Rates) of 1983-84 plus his tender premium of 23. 83% for the work done by him after september, 1983.

( 7 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objections of the Government, confirmed the award by making it a Rule of the Court and further decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 15,00,850/-, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of award till realisation.

( 8 ) IT is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Court below wholly misdirected itself by passing a money decree when the amount wasnot quantified in the award. He submits that the Subordinate Judge ignored the mandatory requirement of Section 17 that the judgment must be in terms of the award. He submits that the calculations filed before the Court below in purported compliance with the award are incorrect and should not have formed the basis for passing a decree for Rs. 15 lakhs and odd. The only course that was open to the Court was to remit the matter to the arbitrators. It is also submitted that the second part of the claim for payment of escalation charges over and above the Agreement rates was not admissible under the terms of the contract. We also pointed out that the contractor himself undertook to execute the work beyond the agreement period without claiming any compensation and the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction in accepting the claim of the contractor on the ground that delay was caused on account of the department s failure to fulfil its obligations. An objection has also been raised to the suo motu extension of time for passing the award without the consent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document