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 29 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 121 of 2003 THE STATE OF M.P.

Versus M/S ARANYA CONSTRUCTION Appearance:

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Advocate for appellant.

None for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This Civil Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against the award dated 31.07.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 35/1999, whereby the claim of the petitioner has partly been allowed.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1983 alleging that they had tendered for construction of linking work and on account of the acts of the petitioner herein, it was not possible for him to complete the work when the water in the canal was flowing. The respondent claimed various amounts on seven counts. In total, a sum of Rs. 6,45,970/-

was claimed. The petitioners, while denying the claim, submitted that it was the fault of the respondent/contractor who did not complete the work in time despite repeated efforts by the petitioners. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the respondent, thus, the present Civil Revision has been preferred.

3. The petitioner has challenged the award only on the ground that the Tribunal has given a finding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and that the respondent did not complete the work, his contract got cancelled by the petitioner herein, and the remaining work was executed by another agency, hence, the respondent is not entitled to get any claim. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the facts and recorded perverse findings while decreeing the claim. Hence, the petition be allowed and the award be set aside.

4. The respondent contested the claim and submitted that the respondent never filed any claim for loss and liquidated damages, hence, the respondent is entitled to get the amount for the work which was done by him.

5. Perused the record. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the reasons for delay given by the petitioner are unacceptable and held that no delay on this ground can be attributed to the respondent. It was further held that the ground of delay does not hold water and no delay can be attributed to the respondent on this account. It was also held that delay in payment of advances cannot become a reason for delay in compliance of the work. On this ground, the claim of escalation of price was denied.

6. Provision 32-A(2) of the agreement provides that the price adjustment clause shall be applicable only for the work carried out within the stipulated period or extension thereof due to reasons not attributable to the contractor. That provision only restricts the price escalation and not other claims. Hence, this provision does not support the petitioner’s plea.

7. The only ground remaining is whether the claim should be rejected on the ground that the contractor did not complete the work and his contract was cancelled. We are of the considered view that on this ground alone, the claim cannot be rejected. The respondent has only a right to recover the liquidated damages and losses borne to complete the work. The respondent cannot file his claim after completion of the work. After a lapse of 26 years, no claim has been filed against the contractor. Therefore, the grounds taken by the petitioner are not sustainable.

8. The Tribunal has allowed the claim for payment of the cost of the precast tiles which was recovered from the 5th running bill and for which only 75% value was paid as secured advance, and now the claim for 100% value amounting to Rs. 90,720/-. Secondly, the claim for refund of royalty. Thirdly, payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the illegally withheld amount ever since the termination of the contract on 1