High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
M/s. Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions rep. By its Partner cum Power of Attorney Holder, & Another
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager/Works, Palghat Division, Southern Railway, Palghat, Kerala, & Others
O.S.A.Nos.109 of 2005 and 247 of 2005
Decided On : 18-07-2007
R. Banumathi, J.
These intra-Court Appeals are preferred against the common order made in O.P.Nos.446/2002 and 78/2003, dismissing the original Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
2. Both the appeals arise out of common order. Since common points fall for consideration, both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, M/s.Sree Amman Constructions is referred as Claimant/Contractor and the Railway Administration/Department is referred as Railway.
.3. Brief facts which led to the arbitration are as follows :¬
.The Southern Railways called for tenders on 01.06.1995 in respect of the work "JTJ-ED Section : contractor 12.54 Kms. CTR of Exg.90R/52 kg. Railways laid on CST.9/Wooden sleepers to 11.7 density with now 60 Kg/52 Kg.Rails on PSC Sleepers with elastic fastening between Km.219/31-231/3-U/L with PQRS equipment". Contractor submitted its quotation for the above said work and the same was accepted by the Railway. Formal Agreement was entered into with the Railway bearing No.J/487/95 on 011. 1995 with the currency period of three months from 210. 1995 to 25.01.1996 for execution of work in Jolarpet-Erode Section CTR for 12.54 Km – work described above. The total value of the work was Rs.17,32,010/-. The schedule consisted of 21 non-schedule items - items 2, 9, 12 and 19 were optional. Four extensions were given for completion of work – the first extension up to 31.03.1996 and 2nd extension up to 31.05.1996, the third extension up to 31.08.1996 and the 4th extension up to 31.03.1997. Rider Agreements were executed for the same by the Contractor with the Railways.
.4. Case of contractor is that since the work is time bound work, the contractor made all necessary arrangements for completing the work expeditiously. But the Railway Authorities failed to supply the requisite permanent way materials such as concrete sleepers in time and failed to arrange necessary traffic blocks to enable the contractor to do the work expeditiously. Inspite of representation to the Railway authorities in person and by letters, no tangible progress could be achieved. Since the Railway administration delayed the matter, the Contractor incurred loss and the work got delayed and the work could be completed in all respects only in eight months time, as against the three months period stipulated in the Agreement. The contractor further claimed that he incurred loses and the costs of materials were also increased and field organisation was rendered idle for many days for want of Railway materials and line blocks. As per the general conditions of the contract, the contractor has to execute up to 25% more in quantities and accept payment at the Agreement rates. According to the claimant, for many items, it executed quantities far more than 25% limit for which the Railway administration ought to have negotiated fresh rates with the contractor. Insofar as optional item no.19 of the schedule of works, appended to the Agreement dated 011. 1995, unit of measurement is spelt out in the tender documents as well as in the Agreement as "one metre length" whereas the Field officials, after completion of work had interpreted it differently converting the work done into "tonnes" which the contractor did not agree and the Contractor has recorded their protest in the measurement book for all items of dispute. The contractor made claims under various heads.
5. The Railway refuted the aforesaid claim contending that there was no lapse or delay on their part either in providing materials or in arranging blocks. Delay in completing the work entirely was with the contractor. The delay on the side of the contractor from the very inception has actually upset the programme of work, which was planned to be done. With the clear consent from the Contractor, as envisaged under Clause 17 of the General Conditions of Contract [in short, GCC], extension of time was granted for completion of
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.