11.09.2025 Item No. 13. Court No.37.

AB (ID 266311) F.M.A. 1592 of 2008 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs Hillol Bharadwaj & Ors.

Mr. Naba Kr. Das, Mr. P. B. Banerjee Mr. Arindam Banerjee …..For the Appellant.

Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This is a very old appeal of 2008. It would appear from the previous orders recorded by us that the respondents have withdrawn from the proceedings. Nonetheless, we had directed service of notice on the respondents. The notices came back “un-served” since two of the respondents have moved from the recorded address and one of the respondents has refused service, which amounts to good service.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated March 22, 2005, passed by the Court of the 3^rd Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No.41 of 2002 instituted by one of the respondents herein, namely, Himanshu Bharadwaj, against the appellants’ predecessor in interest, Calcutta Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Authority.

3. The brief and relevant facts of the case are that a contract was entered into by and between the predecessor in interest of the appellant (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as “KMDA”) and the predecessor in interest of the respondents for laying of RCC pipes in bridge and lateral drains in adjoining areas under Tollygunge Stream Drainage Project Scheme. The agreement was dated March 1, 1971. There was a supplementary tender which was submitted by Himjit Construction (predecessor in interest of the respondents) which was for an amount of Rs. 3,787.25. The original contract was for the sum of Rs.6.55 Lacs approximately.

4. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes between the parties.

5. Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid contract. Himjit Construction (claimant) by a letter dated April 9, 1986, addressed to the Chairman of KMDA requested that such dispute be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The dispute was in relation to a sum of Rs.6,78,520.57 along with interest which the claimant contended was payable to it by KMDA.

6. Joint arbitrators were appointed. The arbitrators published their award on December 22, 2000. The award directed the KMDA to pay Rs.6,78,520.57 and Rs.8,01,676.70 to the claimant on account of work done/extra work done and interest pendente lite respectively. A sum of Rs.10,100/- was also awarded on account of costs.

7. Since the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, governed the arbitration proceeding, the claimant initiated proceedings under Sections 14 and 17 of the 1940 Act for obtaining a judgment and decree in terms of the award that was made in its favour. KMDA filed an objection to such proceeding under Section 30 of the 1940 Act. In such objection, KMDA prayed for setting aside of the said award on various grounds.

8. By the judgment and order impugned herein, the learned Trial Court rejected KMDA’s objection and passed a decree in terms of the said award in favour of the claimant. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the KMDA.

9. Mr. Das, learned Counsel representing the KMDA, tells us that Rs.15 lakh was deposited by KMDA in Court in terms of an order dated March 30, 2009, passed by a Coordinate Bench at the time of admission of this appeal.

10. On the merits of the appeal, Mr. Das submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the award was based on no evidence. No extra work was done by the claimant. The entire dues of the claimant were paid. The claimant received such payment without any reservation or objection. There was no material on record on the basis of which the arbitrators could have allowed the claim on account of work done/extra work done. Therefore, the question of awarding interest did not arise. This was the crux of the argument of Mr. Das.

11. We have gone through the award as also the order of the learned Trial Court sought to be a