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 12 OF JANUARY, 2026

ARBITRATION REVISION No. 5 of 2014

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Versus

M/S ANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS

BHAGIDARI FIRM SHRI MANGAL RAMDAS SETH NAGPUR

Appearance:

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General for petitioners/State.

Shri Navneesh Jauhari, Advocate for respondent.

ORDER granted contract work to the respondent/contractor for earth work and construction of 4 number structure of Rajiv Sagar Project, Left Bank Main Canal. The contract amount was of Rs.3,18,51,288/-. The work was to be completed within the period of 24 months excluding the period of rainy season, but till 05.12.2004. The non-applicant/contractor could not complete the work within the stipulated and made request for extension of time, therefore, the extension was granted till 31.12.2005. Even after granting extension the non-applicant could complete only 90% work. Moreover, during the execution of work the non-applicant/contractor demanded additional amount for extra lift, extra dewatering and excavation of hard rock. The request was turned down by the petitioners/State for the reason that the work for additional amount was being demanded, was part of the work awarded to the non-applicant/contractor.

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

The present arbitration revision is preferred under Section 19 of the

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, challenging the award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastam Adhikaran Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. 55 of 2008. By the said award, the claim of the non-applicant/contractor has been partly allowed and the petitioners /State has been directed to pay Rs.15,91,761/- within a period of three months and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of submitting the claim over the of Rs.13,71,016/- and also refund the FDR amounting to

Rs.2,20,000/- including its interest.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners/State have

3. Petitioner/State has taken the following grounds in revision that the learned Tribunal fell in error to observe that, the time is not the essence of the contract and therefore, a work has not been completed within the stipulated period, then the same cannot be made cause for terminating the contract as the same cannot be considered the default of the contractor and therefore, clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.1 could not have been invoked. However, this observation is not proper because the same has been made ignoring the specific provision made in the agreement containing that, the time is the essence of the contract.

4. For that, the learned Tribunal failed to consider that, in the terms and conditions of the agreement since there is a provision of granting extension and the same has been invoked on the request made by non- applicant/contractor that does not mean that time is not the essence of the contract. Since the contract has been terminated for the reason that, it was fault of the contractor that even after granting extension he could not complete the work then the said termination entails forfeiture of security amount and earnest money not only this the non-applicant was also responsible to pay the loss to the Government occurred due to invoking debitable clause and granting contract for remaining and balance work left by the contractor incomplete, for which NIT was issued and work was granted to some other contractor. The additional amount which had to be paid to the Government to the new contractor is a loss, which is to be recovered from the non-applicant.

5. That, for the reasons mentioned above the award is bad and deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel of the respondent/contractor has opposed the petition and argued that tribunal has rightly exercised jurisdiction vested by law and the finding of learned Tribunal is not perverse. Respondent/contractor has pleaded that the petitioners/State did