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 20 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1276 of 2002 M/S MITTAL & CO Versus THE BHOPAL VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate Shri Neerja Agrawal -

Advocate for petitioner.

None for respondent.

WITH CIVIL REVISION No. 1200 of 2002 BHOPAL VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR Versus M/S MITTAL & COMPANY Appearance:

None for petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate Shri Neerja Agrawal - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present Civil Revision No.1200/2002 and 1276/2002 under Section 19 of the Mad hya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 have been preferred by the petitioner and the respondent, both challenging the award dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby the claim of the petitioner–contractor was partly allowed for a sum of Rs. 5,51,517/-. Both these Civil Revisions are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Civil Revision No.1276/2002 are being taken.

2. For the sake of convenience, the contractor shall be referred to as petitioner and the department shall be referred to as respondent.

3. Respondent has taken the following ground in revision that the learned Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law and passed the award in a very casual manner. All findings of learned Tribunal are perverse. The progress of work by the petitioner was unsatisfactory from the very beginning. Several notices were issued, and various extensions were granted on the contractor’s repeated requests, however, despite indulgence by the department, the respondent failed to improve the pace of work or achieve the required progress. The quality of work executed was also alleged to be substandard. The learned Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction illegally as much as the learned Tribunal passed awarded in favor of petitioner. Tribunal utterly failed to look the award is time barred and finding of delay caused by petitioner is perverse of record and evidence. Eventually, finding no improvement and considering the persistent slow pace of execution, the applicants terminated the contract under Clause 3(c) vide order dated 02.08.1989 (Ex. P-23). Produced extensive documentary evidence to demonstrate that the delays were solely attributable to the contractor and that repeated warnings had been issued to accelerate the work. By the impugned award dated 03.06.2002, the Tribunal allowed Claim No. 2 (escalation charges on materials, POL, labour, etc., during the extended period) and Claim No. 3 (14th/final bill, cost of materials, security deposit, and earnest money), amounting in total to Rs. 4,86,006/-. Ante-lite interest from 09.03.1990 to 22.04.1991 was awarded, increasing the total sum to Rs. 5,51,517/-. The respondents were further directed to pay pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum from 23.04.1991 till payment.

4. Learned counsel of the petitioner has taken the following ground in revision that respondent illegally terminate the contract the work, petitioner was always ready to execute the work as per the condition of the contract but respondent failed to provide proper assistance to execute the work. The NIT did not clarify whether the rainy season was included within the 12-month period, and that various delays attributable to the petitioner prevented timely completion. The petitioner further alleged that the termination of the contract was illegal and that the final bill was wrongfully withheld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence and hold the respondent is liable to delay. The petitioner has filed a Reference Petition on 22.04.1991 under Section 7 of the Act of 1983, raising a total claim of Rs. 17,74,669/-. His claim was partly allowed by the tribunal despite of that, the delay was attribute by the respondent, Only that ground his all claim ought to be