2026:BHC-AUG:3707-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2022

01. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR Command Area Development Authority, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad, Taluka & District: Aurangabad

02. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATOR, Command Area Development Authority, Beed, District: Beed

03. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Jayakwadi Irrigation Division No.3, Beed, District: Beed .. Appellants (Original Respondents NO.2, 3 and 5)

Versus

01. HULE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Managing Director, Mr. Vishwanath Dagdoba Hule, Head Office at Ashwini, Shivaji Chowk, Patoda, Taluka Patoda, District: Beed

02. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Water Resources Department, Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032

03. THE COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN District Level Implementation Committee (DLIC) Beed Through Executive Engineer and Member Secretary Minor Irrigation Division Headquarter at Ambajogai, Distirct: Beed .. Respondents (Original Respondents No.1 & 4)

…

Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. J. N. Singh AGP for Respondent No.2: Mr. A. R. Kale …

WITH ...

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10992 OF 2022 IN CARBA/2/2022 THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AURANGABAD AND ORS VERSUS HULE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED THR ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VISHWANATH DAGDOBA HULE AND ORS …

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar Advocate for Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. J. N. Singh AGP for Non-applicant / State: Mr. A. R. Kale …

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER &

VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Reserved on : 19.01.2026 Pronounced on : 29.01.2026 Judgment (Per Arun R. Pedneker, J.):

1. By the present Commercial Arbitration Appeal, the Appellants are challenging the Award dated 02.02.2019, passed by the sole Arbitrator and the order dated 12.04.2022, passed by the learned District Judge in Commercial Civil Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby, dismissing the application filed by the Appellants.

2. Heard Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar, learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr. J. N. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr. A. R. Kale, learned AGP for Respondent No.2.

FACTS:

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this commercial appeal are noted below:-

The Appellant floated a tender for work of repair, renovation and restoration of 19 minor irrigation tanks in District Beed, Maharashtra. The estimated value of the work was Rs.29,55,47,811/-.

The offer of the respondent / claimant being the lowest i.e. 0.11% below the estimated cost was accepted and the claimant was called upon for negotiations and, ultimately, it was agreed that the cost shall be 0.50% below the estimated cost.

It is stated in the claim petition that there were further negotiations and the estimated costs of the work was accepted for Rs.29,40,70,072/- and, accordingly, after completing the necessary formalities, the agreement bearing no.B-1/23 was executed between the parties and work order dated 17.11.2006 came to be issued by the Executive Engineer Jayakwadi Irrigation Division No.3 / Appellant No.3 herein to the claimant / Respondent No.1 herein. The same was to be completed by 16.11.2007.

Due to prolongation of work for about 3 years from the due date of completion, dispute arose and, accordingly, the claimant issued notice under Clause 30(1) of the General Conditions of Contract for settlement of disputes to Superintending Engineer on 16.02.2009. The Superintending Engineer failed to address the issue, as such, an appeal under Clause 30(2) of the General Conditions of Contract was preferred to the Chief Engineer on 01.10.2011 which was also not decided. Thereafter, under Clause 30 (3) of the General Conditions of Contract, further, appeal was filed before the Secretary, Water Resources Department, on 31.10.2011, which was also not addressed. As such, the contractor issued statutor