The Tribunal has the power to regulate its own procedure and as stated earlier Section 18 (1) does not preclude it from invoking the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code if the ends of justice so require.

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This revision under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been preferred against the award of the Arbitration Tribunal dated 7-4-1997 whereby the claim preferred by the appellant/contractor has been dismissed in toto and the counter-claim preferred by the Irrigation Department through its Engineer and the State has been allowed by directing the contractor to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,637/- (inclusive of interest) due upto the date of filing of claim i.e. 26-11-1996 and further interest at the contractual rate from 26-11-1996 on the outstanding amount of loan advanced in the sum of Rs. 94,658/-.

2. The facts not in dispute are that the applicant/contractor was awarded work for excavation of Chachai Distributary from Ch. 95 to Ch. 225 as part of the Bansagar Multipurpose River Valley Project. The contractor was sanctioned a total loan of Rs. 5 lacs for purchase of machinery which was an excavator/loader. The amount of advance was repayable with interest by the contractor and could be adjusted against the running bills. A sum of Rs. 69,000/- against the advance of 2 lacs for the sanctioned loan was recovered from the contractor. According to the department, the contractor, against the terms of the contract, removed the machinery from the work-site for his use in some other work. Since the machinery was hypothecated with the department and was specifically purchased for being used for the contract work in question, a police report was made for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and the machinery was seized and given on Supurdnama to the contractor. The above incident in which the contractor denied commission of any offence of breach of trust led to dispute between the parties and the contract awarded to the contractor was not completed by him.

3. The contractor made reference of the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal and laid a claim for loss and damage on several heads in the total sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- and claimed interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. The department not only opposed the claim alleging breach on the part of the contractor but also filed a counter- claim for recovery of loss caused to the department in getting the unfinished work done through another agency. A seperate claim was laid in the sum of Rs. 1,43,439/- as the balance amount payable by the contractor for return of the money advanced for purchase of machinery including interest thereon.

5. The Arbitration Tribunal by the impugned award held that there was no breach on the part of the department. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the whole claim laid by the contractor. The Tribunal also rejected the claim of the department for recovery of loss for getting the unfinished work executed through another agency. It, however, accepted the counter-claim of the department only to the extent of Rs. 1,43,439/- as the loan liable to be returned by the contractor with interest for the money advanced for purchase of machinery. The amount of loan with interest payable upto the date of filing of the counter-claim and future interest on the outstanding amount of loan till the date of payment has been awarded.

6. Learned counsel Shri Kishore Shrivastava appearing for the petitioner, in view of the limited scope for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction, could not assail the finding of the Tribunal against the contractor that there was no breach of contract on the part of the department. The award of the Tribunal has been challenged only on two grounds. The first ground urged is that under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the regulations framed thereunder, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a counter-claim submitted by the State and pass an award on the same. The second ground urged is that except for filing a statement in the form of Schedule to the counter-claim, the department led no evidence in support of its claim and mere produ