HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
Union Of India - Appellants
Vs
Cementone - Respondents
A.P. No. 84 of 2007
Decided on: Feb 10, 2011
ARBITRATION - Setting aside of award - Claim for escalation of wages, price of stone dust and diesel, loading after sunset, and prolonged establishment - Interpretation of contract clauses - Permissibility of escalation claims - Grant of interest - Legality.
Fact of the Case:
The Eastern Railway Administration entered into a contract with a partnership firm for the supply and loading of stone dust. The contract was extended thrice, each time stating that the extension was granted under Clause 17(2) of the General Conditions of Contract and that the other terms and conditions would remain the same. The respondent claimed escalation of wages, price of stone dust, diesel, loading after sunset, and prolonged establishment beyond the contractual period. The Arbitrator awarded the claims except for the claim for lesser measurement in quantity of stone dust at the destination unloading point. The petitioner, Union of India, filed an application to set aside the award on the ground that the claims were not permissible under the contract and that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to grant interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the claims for escalation of wages, price of stone dust, and loading after sunset were permissible under the contract. The court interpreted Clause 17(2) of the General Conditions of Contract to mean that in cases where delay was caused by the railway, in special circumstances, there was no impediment to claiming compensation. The court also held that Clause 25 of the Special Conditions of Contract related to price fluctuation in normal conditions, during the contract period and did not relate to any unforeseen price fluctuations during the extended period of the contract where such extension was granted due to fault of one of the parties, admitting the above special circumstances. The court further held that the grant of interest by the Arbitrator upto the date of the award was not correct as the interest barring clause 16(2) prohibiting payment of interest by the railways to the contractor was directly in issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the claims for escalation of wages, price of stone dust, diesel, loading after sunset, and prolonged establishment were permissible under the contract? 2. Whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the claims for escalation of wages, price of stone dust, and loading after sunset were permissible under the contract. The court interpreted Clause 17(2) of the General Conditions of Contract to mean that in cases where delay was caused by the railway, in special circumstances, there was no impediment to claiming compensation. The court also held that Clause 25 of the Special Conditions of Contract related to price fluctuation in normal conditions, during the contract period and did not relate to any unforeseen price fluctuations during the extended period of the contract where such extension was granted due to fault of one of the parties, admitting the above special circumstances. 2. The court held that the grant of interest by the Arbitrator upto the date of the award was not correct as the interest barring clause 16(2) prohibiting payment of interest by the railways to the contractor was directly in issue.
Final Decision: The award was partly set aside by deleting the award for claim for increase in price of diesel and also deleting the award of interest from 20th October, 2003 till 27th September, 2006. The award for costs was not disturbed.
I.P. Mukerji, J.
1. This is an application to set aside an arbitration award made on 27th September, 2006. The proceedings were conducted and the award made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned sole Arbitrator, sole was appointed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 1st July, 2004. This application is made by the Union of India on behalf of Eastern Railway Administration, under section 34 of the above Act to set aside such award.
2. The respondent is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in New Alipore in Kolkata. The Eastern Railway Administration entered into a contract with them on or about 20th February, 2002. This contract was reduced to a formal agreement between the parties on 5th April, 2002. The respondent was to supply and load 20000 Cubic Metres of stone dust into railway wagons at inter alia Pakur. Rajgram and other quarries nominated by the railways. The railways needed such stone dust for restoration of about 24 Kms. of railway track. The rate at which the respondent was to be paid was Rs.72.50 per Metric ton. The duration of the contract was three months from 20th February, 2002. As is usual in railway contracts, apart from the signed contract document, the General and Special Conditions of Contract of the railways were incorporated into the contract. The work was ultimately completed on 29th November, 2002. It was required to have been completed by 19th May, 2002. This delay was made up by three extensions granted by the railways. Each letter of extension said that the contract was extended till a particular date "in terms of Clause 17(2) of the General Conditions of Contract" and that "the other terms and conditions of the original contract will remain the same as before". The terms of this extension are the subject matter of much dispute between the parties, which will be discussed in detail later.
Some terms and conditions of this contract are most significant for determination of this application. The first is Clause 25 of the Special Conditions which is as follows:
"Clause 25 of the Special Conditions: The tenderer while quoting the rates shall take into account the possible fluctuation of the market rate in respect of labour, materials, taxes etc. during currency of the contract and also the extension of the same granted from time to time under Clause 17(3) of the General Conditions of contract and standard Specifications (1969) Edition."
3. The second is Clause 17(2) of the General Conditions which is as follows:
"If the Contractor be delayed at any time in the progress of the works by any act or neglect of the Railway's employees or by any other contractor employed by the Railway under sub-Clause (4) of clause 20 of these conditions, or by strikes, lock-outs, fire, unusual delay in transportation, unavoidable casualties or any causes beyond the Contractor's control, or by delay authorised by the Engineer pending arbitration, or by any cause which the Engineer shall decide to justify the delay, then the time of completion of the works may be extended for such reasonable time as the Engineer on behalf of the Railway may decide."
4. The third is Clause 17(3) of the General Conditions which is as follows:
"17(3) Extension of time on Railway Account - In the event of any failure or delay by the Railway to hand over to the Contractor possession of the lands necessary for the execution of the works or to give the necessary notice to commence the works or to provide the necessary drawings or instructions or any other delay caused by the Railway due to any other cause whatsoever, then such failure or delay shall in no way affect or vitiate the contract or alter the character thereof or entitle the Contractor to damages or compensation therefor but in any such case, the Railway may grant such extension or extensions of the completion date as may be considered reasonable."
The other clauses which have same significance are clause 6 and clause 11 which are also
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.