MOHAN SHANTANA GOUDAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of a common Order passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge at Mysore in a. C. s No. 3/91, 4/91 and 62/1991 whereby objections filed by the appellants to the Awards made by the Arbitrator have been rejected as time barred and the Awards made a rule of the Court. In the factual backdrop that we propose to set out hereunder, the appellant shall be referred to as the 'department' and the respondents as 'claimant' for the sake of convenience.

( 2 ) THE Department invited tenders for different items of work in connection with construction of kabini Right Bank Canal. The claimant emerged successful in regard to three items of work which were allotted to him for execution in terms of three separate agreements signed by the parties. These works were to be completed within the time stipulated in the respective agreement, failing which the Department could rescind the contract and have the remainder of the work or works executed through another agency, at the risk and cost of the claimant.

( 3 ) THE claimant could not despite extensions granted to him for the purpose, complete the execution of the works allotted to him within the extended period granted to him for the purpose. The contracts executed between the parties were therefore rescinded by the Department after notice to the claimant and the balance of the work assigned to another agency for completion.

( 4 ) THE broad details of the said works were on the date of termination as under:. Agreement dated 6. 7. 1981: a) Estimated value of the works - Rs. 21,82,722. 00/ b) Works actually executed - Rs. 9,98,681. 00/. Agreement dated 10-07-1981. a) Estimated value of the works - Ps. 15,42,900. 00/ b) Works actually executed - Rs. 7,62,782. 00/. Agreement dated 29- 12-1981: a) Estimated value of the works - Rs. 13,13,485. 00/ b) Works actually executed - Rs. 5,74,448. 00/

( 5 ) IN the year 1990, the Department raised claims for payment of the extra cost incurred by it for the completion of the incomplete work left by the claimant. Aggrieved by the demand raised against him, the claimant filed three different petitions under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration act in connection with the three agreements mentioned above before the Civil Judge at Mysore which were registered as A. C. s No. 2, 3 and 4 of 1991. In the said petitions, the claimant sought a direction for filing the Arbitration Agreement in the Court and for reference of the disputes to the Chief Engineer for adjudication. The said petitions were opposed by the Department inter alia contending that there was no arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, hence no reference to arbitration was permissible. The Civil Judge passed a common order dated 27-7-1993 by which he held that Clause-30 of the Agreement was an arbitration agreement and accordingly referred the disputes raised by the claimant to the Chief Engineer for arbitration. No appeal against the said Order was preferred by the Department with the result that sri Kaliprasad, the then Chief Engineer entered upon the reference but retired from service before he could complete the proceedings. The claimant thereupon filed an application (. A. No. 5) before the Court for an Order permitting Sri Kaliprasad to continue as Arbitrator. The said. A. was dismissed by the Court below by Order dated 4-4-1995. Another. A. was thereafter filed before the Court seeking review of its earlier Order dated 4-4-1995. That application was allowed by the Court below by Order dated 30-11-1995 and Sri Kaliprasad continued as arbitrator.

( 6 ) THE Arbitrator eventually filed three separate Awards before the Court below on 31-5-1996. No specific notice regarding the filing of the Awards was issued by the Reference Court, It is however not in dispute that copies of the Awards were served upon the Government Pleader in the Court below on 3-8-1996 and the matter posted for filing of objections to the Awards to 10-10-1996. O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document