COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

1. These four matters which arise out of common order, dated 19.01.2001 in arbitration O.P.Nos.318 and 365 of 1991 passed by the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. These two O.Ps., were filed in connection with the arbitration award, dated 06.07.1991 by Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation (Corporation, for brevity) and M/s.G.V.Malla Reddy and Company (Contractor, for brevity), a firm, in that, the former seeking to set aside the award and the latter praying to make the award rule of the Court. By impugned common Judgment, learned senior civil Judge set aside the award insofar as three claims are concerned and thus partly allowing the petitions filed by Corporation as well as the contractor.

2. The work of construction of Telugu Vanijya Bhavanam at A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, was taken up by Corporation. After due tender process, the work was entrusted to the contractor under agreement, dated 18.06.1987, which vide clause 65 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) provides for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The contract period is eighteen (18) months, to be completed by 28.12.1988. The site was handed over to the contractor on 26.06.1987 and there was slow progress. The contractor blamed the Corporation and therefore, he insisted prevailing market rates for the work already done after completion of agreement period. He also requested for extension of period at revised rates. The Corporation then terminated contract on 19.01.1989. The disputes which arose were referred to sole arbitrator. Before the arbitrator, contractor made XXII claims. After adjudicating the same, the arbitrator allowed claim Nos.III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, XI and XII. These are payment of security deposit, refund of fixed security deposit, compensation for water brought from outside, compensation for dismantled distilled fabrication, compensation for cement brought from outside, loss of profit and refund of deductions made towards further security deposit. The arbitrator also partly allowed claim Nos.I, II, V and XXI. These are payment of third running bill, payment for work done after submission of third bill, cost of borewell and interest at 21% per annum. The other reliefs being claim Nos.IX, X, XIII to XX and XXII were rejected. These are compensation for steel brought from outside, overhead charges, loss of advance paid to labour, loss of advance paid to metal supplier, loss of advance paid to brick supplier, loss due to slow progress, increase in labour charges and metal cost, increase in minimum wages, compensation for expenses incurred for removing materials from the site and the amounts due under final bill. The counter claims made by Corporation were totally rejected.

3. The contractor filed O.P.No.365 of 1991 under Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 to make the award rule of the Court in terms thereof with interest at 18% per annum. The Corporation filed O.P.No.318 of 1991 praying the Court to set aside the award and to remit back the portion of the award relating to the counter claims for fresh consideration. As noticed supra, both these O.Ps., were partly allowed and the award was made rule of the Court except in respect of three claims and interest thereon. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A.No.1666 of 2001 and C.R.P.No.2939 of 2001 are filed by contractor and C.M.A.No.1824 of 2001 and C.R.P.No.2893 of 2001 are filed by Corporation. Though Corporation filed the appeal and revision against the entire award, submissions are made before us in relation to claim Nos.I, V and XI. Even out of these, Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for Corporation pressed and made submissions on claim No.XI which deals with loss of profit and also touched upon other claims which are mainly the payments towards work done or pending bills or refund of security deposit, fixed deposit etc. The contractor mainly insisted upon the award of interest. Indeed, it is not denied before us