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

2017 Supreme(HP) 159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Parmod Sood – Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Another – Respondents
Arb. Case No. 19 of 2012
Decided On : 23-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. J.S. Bhogal with Mr. Himanshu Kapila.
For the Respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma with Mr. J.S. Guleria.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly interpreting contract provisions, particularly regarding deviation limits and determination of rates for excess quantities, and the court's authority to set aside arbitral awards based on misapplication of contract provisions.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Contract Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 - Clause 12, Clause 12-A - Mehta Teja Singh and Co. vs. Union of India - Interpretation of contract provisions, deviation limits, and determination of rates for excess quantities - Court's finding on misapplication of contract provisions and setting aside of arbitral award

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to set aside an arbitral award related to a contract dispute over the execution of road work. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Clause 12 and Clause 12-A of the contract, specifically regarding deviation limits and determination of rates for excess quantities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the arbitrator had misapplied the provisions of the contract and wrongly denied the petitioner's claim. The court set aside the arbitral award and directed the tribunal to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of the court's observations.

Issues: Interpretation of contract provisions, deviation limits, determination of rates for excess quantities, misapplication of contract provisions by the arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the misapplication of contract provisions by the arbitrator, specifically Clause 12 and Clause 12-A, and the court's finding that the petitioner's claim had been wrongly denied.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the arbitral award, and directed the tribunal to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of the court's observations.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. By medium of this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’), the applicant has prayed for setting aside of the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 5.11.2011.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The parties entered into contract with respect to the execution of the work relating to strengthening of Chandigarh-Mandi-Manali road NH-21 in KM-105/0 to 127/0 (Sh. Strengthening of existing road pavement in Km.105/0 to 127/0) and a formal contract was duly executed between the parties on the standard form of contract adopted by the respondents for such works.

3. The disputes had arisen between the parties relating to the amounts claimed by the petitioner for execution of works beyond the agreed limits. The same were initially referred to the sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan, who heard the matter and made an award dated 21.6.2002. The award was challenged by the respondents before this Court by filing Arbitration Case No. 52 of 2002 and vide order dated 5.9.2005, the award was ordered to be set aside. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Arbitration Appeal No. 4 of 2005, but the same was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.4.2009. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, HPPWD, Shimla, who made the award on 5.11.2011.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the petitioner has assailed the same on the ground that the learned Arbitrator has completely misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of the Contract entered into between the parties, especially the provisions of Clause 12-A thereof and thereby reached a wrong conclusion.

5. The respondents have filed reply to the petition wherein it has been averred that various clauses of the arbitration agreement, including the one contained in Clause 12-A have been correctly interpreted by the learned Arbitrator as the same was not to be read in isolation but was required to be read in conjunction alongwith the provisions of Clause 12-A of the agreement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

7. As the outcome of this petition hinges upon the interpretation to be given to Clauses 12 and 12-A of the agreement, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions in entirety and the same read as under:

Clause 12 – The Engineer-in-Charge shall have power to make any alterations in, omissions from additions to or substitutions for, the original specifications, drawings, designs and instructions, that may appear to him to be necessary during the progress of the work, and the contractor shall carry out the work in accordance with any instructions may be given to him in writing signed by the Engineer-in-charge and such alterations, omissions, additions or substitutions shall not invalidate the contract and any altered, additional or substituted work which the contractor may be directed to do in the manner above specified as part of the work shall be carried out by the contractor on the same conditions in all respect on which he agreed to do the main work. The time for the completion of the work shall be extended in the proportion that the altered, additional or substituted work bears to the original contract work, and the certificate of the Engineer-in- charge shall be conclusive as to such proportion. Over and above this, a further period to the extent of 25 per cent of the time so extended shall be allowed to the contractor. The rates for such additional, altered or substituted work under this clause shall be worked out in accordance with the following provisions in their respective order:-

(i) The rates for the additional or substituted work are specified in the contract for the work, the contractors is bound to carry out the additional altered or substituted work at the same rates as are specified in the contract for the work.

(










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top