IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 13 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1740 of 2001 ARJUN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS Appearance:

Shri Sourabh Sing Thakur - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

1. The present civil revision, preferred under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, calls in question the award dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 46/1997 whereby claim of the petitioner of Rs.1,76,395/- has been rejected.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their respective titles as used before the Tribunal.

3. It is admitted fact that petitioner’s tender for providing and laying filter and constructions of rock toe from R.D.1410 M to R.D. 1500 M of Lakhundar Project was accepted by respondents. The amount of work put to tender was Rs.9,12,000/- whereas the amount of contract was Rs.9,29,550/-.

The stipulated period of completion was 4 months. The work order was issued on 18.11.1993 and the date of completion was 17.03.1994.

4. Petitioner’s case in brief is that the work under the aforesaid contract was mostly in nallah portion and so it was necessary to decide taking up of the earth work in this portion by the respondents to enable the petitioner to complete his obligation under the contract. After the receipt of work order, the petitioner mobilised his men and machinery at site so that the work may be executed within the stipulated period. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents gave lay out only in safezone initially and this way caused hinderance in completion of the work in time. Since the respondents were apprehending non-availability of funds the work in full area was not allowed to be done. This apprehension continued upto March, 1994. It was very much clear that funds for compensation to the inhabitants of submergence and their re-habilitation plan were not available therefore, the petitioner requested to the officers of the respondents to finalise the contract of incomplete work by Annex.A-3. The E.E. incharge prepared the final bill and worked out that as the work done by the petitioner was for Rs. 1,81,148/- after deducting the amount of the previous bill, a cheque was passed for Rs. 62,485/-. However, the successor E.E. reduced the amount of final bill as Rs. 1,31,873/-. At the same time the respondents did not allow the petitioner to execute the contractual work, therefore, the petitioner has claimed Rs. 1,29,532/- as loss of profit and loss on account of overhead charges as per statement No.2. Petitioner has given cost of work done but not paid, in statement No.1. Petitioner has also claimed interest @ 18% as detailed in statement No.3. Petitioner has submitted his claims before the final authority and filed the claim petition for the following claims;

Sr.

Claim Amount No.

Cost of work done but not paid for as detailed in

1. Rs.20,482/-

statement No.1 Claim on account of loss of profit and loss on account

2. Rs.1,29,532/-

of overhead charges-statement No.2 Interest @ 18% on the amount as per details in

3. Rs.26,381/-

statement no.3 Total - 1,76,396/-

5. Respondents have denied all the material allegations made by the petitioner and prayed that the reference petition may be dismissed with cost. The respondents have alleged that the B.E. who has earlier prepared the final bill was not authorised to fix rates for extra work of extra items and the S.E. was the authority who has finalised the extra rates for such extra work as per clause 4.3.13.(c) of the agreement. The respondents have further alleged that the petitioner is not entitled to any loss of profit or overhead expenses, therefore, the reference petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondents have also pleaded that the reference petition is barred by limit