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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 17

Calcutta High Court
MONORANJAN MULLICK, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Abhoy Sarkar. - Respondents
Award Case No. 325 of 1989
Decided On : 24 January 1991

The interpretation of a contract is a matter for the arbitrator and the court cannot interfere with it.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - SETTING ASIDE AWARD - ESCALATION COSTS - INTEREST - INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT - CONTRACTUAL BAR - SECTION 3(B) OF THE INTEREST ACT, 1978.

Fact of the Case:

A contract for construction was awarded to the respondent by the petitioner, representing the Eastern Railway. The contract could not be completed within the stipulated period due to the failure of the Railways in making over the site for demolition. The respondent claimed escalation costs and interest for the delay. The Arbitrator awarded the escalation costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim to the date of reference.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Arbitrator did not commit any misconduct in awarding the escalation costs as it was a matter of interpretation of the contract and the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to interpret Clause 17(3) of the General Condition of Contract. However, the court held that the Arbitrator was not justified in awarding interest at 12% per annum as the respondent failed to prove that any written notice was given by the Contractor claiming interest.

Issues: 1. Whether the Arbitrator committed misconduct in awarding the escalation costs? 2. Whether the Arbitrator was justified in awarding interest at 12% per annum?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the interpretation of the contract is a matter for the arbitrator and when the amounts have been awarded by the arbitrator by taking a particular view of the contract, the Court cannot interfere with it and substitute its own decision. 2. The court held that in order to make a claim under the Interest Act, 1978, the Respondent has to prove that any written notice was given by the Contractor claiming interest.

Final Decision: The application was allowed in part. The award was confirmed subject to the deletion of the interest awarded.

Judgement

ORDER :- This is an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award passed by Shri A. P. Bhattacharyya, the sole Arbitrator dated 2-5­-1989.

2. The facts are briefly as follows :-­

A contract for construction of platform wall, dismentaling of the old Station Building and other constructions between platforms Nos. 4A and 5 at Sealday Railway Station was given to the respondent by the petitioner representating the Eastern Railway. The con­tract was entered into on 17th March, 1978 after the respondents tender was accepted by the letter dated February 3, 1978. The work was scheduled for completion within six months. The agreement in question incorporates schedules A and C. The Schedule A is the demolition work, Schedule C is a construction of platform wall and Schedule B included works other than a Schedule C. The rate agreed upon the Schedule B was 130% of the above the schedule rate. The contract could not be completed according to the respondent contractor within six months owing to the failure on the part of the Respondent-Railway to make over site for demolition. The demolition had to be carried on phase-wise, owing to failure on the part of the Railways in making over possession and that there was also delay in execution of the work on the said agreement and such delay contended upon 31 months beyond the initial six months and in the meantime there had been escalation of cost and price rise which according to the claimant entitles him 298% above schedule rate. The respondent claimed the said rate on the principal contract also for the period during which the work had been delayed i.e. for 31 months. The respondent No. 1 claimed about Rs. 11 lacs and as his demand was not acceded to even if he had written several letters he filed Special Suit No. 23 of 1985. The said suit was allowed and the General Manager, Eastern Railway was directed to refer the matter of Arbitration to the Joint Arbitrators. The Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in Matter No. 1362 of 1985 and by the order dated 30-7-1986 Mrs. Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. removed the Joint Arbitrators and appointed Sri A. P. Bhattacharyya, a retired Judge of the High Court as Sole Arbitrator. Before the Sole Arbitrator, the Respondent No. 1 filed a total claim against 14 items of Rupees 8,14,159.67 along with the interest from 19-6-­1982 at the rate of 19.5% per annum. The petitioners submitted a counter statement and contested each claim on the basis of the facts on record and relying documents filed respect thereof. The learned Arbitrator thereafter allowed the (sic) to the extent of Rupees 2,76,639.58. He also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19-6-1982 till the date of entering the reference i.e. on 2-8-1985.

3. Being aggrieved the Union of India has filed this application for setting aside the award. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Arbitrator did not apply his mind to the fact that first respondent wrongfully and in breach of the said contract and/or neglected to complete the aforesaid works and also several extensions as a result of which the petitioner suffered loss and realisation of which appropriate action has been advised. The Arbitrator did not consider that the claim of Rs. 11 lacs made by the First Respondent did not have support of docu­ments and/or vouchers testifying actual ex­penses made or loss suffered by him, that the item No. 1 of the claim does not appear to be justified in terms of Clause 17(2) and (3) of the Eastern Railway General condition of con­tract of 1969 which is binding on the contract as per the Agreement dated 17-2-89, that the extension of the completion of work has been given to the Contractor on his specific request under Clause 17(2) and (3) of the General Condition of Contract for which the con­tractor is not payable any extra compensa­tion; that the award against item No. 5 for rei
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top