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 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 1353 of 2002

M/S SHANTI CONSTRUCTION CO

Versus

THE STATE OF M.P. & ANR

Appearance:

Shri Shravan Kumar Rao - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ritwik Parashar G.A. for respondents/State.

ORDER N0. 6 Royalty charges of extracted materials for Rs. 2,000/-, Claim No. 7 Carting charges of G.I. Pipes for Rs.5,000/-, Claim No. 8 Staging around sluice for Rs. 16,000/- and Claim No. 9 Loss of account of maintenance of camp for Rs. 16,000/-.

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

The present civil revision preferred under Section 19 of the Madhya

Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, challenging the award dated 27.06.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 189 of 1991. By the said award, the petitioner’s claims No. 2 and 4 have been partly allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay Rs. 1,67,798/- as per Claim No. 2 and 4 and pendentelite and future interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.1,17,341 from 24.04.1991 till the date of realization. The tribunal rejected the Claim No.1 Excavation of hard rock with 100% blasting for Rs.3,61,114/-, Claim No. 3 Additional quantities executed in excess of agreemented quantity for Rs. 1,63,267/-, Claim No. 5 Refund of hire charges of compressor for Rs. 20,800/-, Claim

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of Ubharia Tank, Group No. 1, earth work, boulder toe, filter, pitching, from chain 0 to 5 and 8 to 11 vide agreement No. 2 of 80-81. The stipulated period of contract was four months excluding rainy season from the date of work order. That during the course of execution of the contract disputes arose between the parties and the applicant referred the same to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal and claimed Rs.8,39,465/-

under different heads.

3. Petitioner 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. That, the award of the Learned Tribunal rejecting the claims of the applicant is bad in law.

4. That, the Learned Tribunal failed to see that the rock met during the excavation was not covered under the classification of hard rock given in the U.C.S.R. That, the Learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record should have held that the rock met during the excavation was not harder than the hard rock. That, the Learned Tribunal failed to see that the Superintending Engineer had asked to conduct the test and submit rate analysis. The Tribunal should have drawn adverse inference against the department for not filing test report in the tribunal. That, finding of the Tribunal that the rock met was not harder than the hard rock is not based on evidence. That, the Learned Tribunal erred in holding that the applicant was not entitled to fixation of fresh rates for the quantities in excess of 10%. The Tribunal should have amended the amount claimed by the applicant under this head. That, the Learned Tribunal should have awarded interest for the delay in making payment of running bills also. That, the Learned Tribunal failed to see that the department was not entitled to rent of compressor amounting to Rs. 20,800/- as only one 'jack hammer' out of four was working, even if it was with the applicant. The Tribunal failed to see that the above fact was brought to the notice of the department vide letter dt. 30-12- 82 (Ex.P-14). The Tribunal should have directed the non-applicants to refund Rs. 20,800/- to the applicant. That, the Learned Tribunal should have directed the department to refund royalty charges to the applicant. That, the Learned Tribunal erred by not granting the claim of carting charges of G.K. Pipes amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal failed to see that execution of this work by the ap