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 FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 406 of 2003 RAJENDRA KUMAR BHALLA Versus SECRETARY AND ORS Appearance:

Shri Shravan Kumar Rao - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for responident/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This Civil Revision, filed under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, is directed against the award dated 12.12.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 82/1996, whereby claim of the petitioner was partly allowed.

2. The present Revision arises out of the Award dated 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal in a Reference Case filed by the petitioner/contractor. The contract for construction of the balance work of 16 Type Quarters at Indira Sagar Colony, Khandwa, was awarded to the petitioner under Agreement No. 1/1990-91, the probable amount being Rs. 12,00,000/-, and since the petitioner’s offer was 53.789% above the Schedule of Rates, the contract value was worked out to Rs. 18,45,476/-. The stipulated period for completion was 12 months including the rainy season, with the due date being 08.08.1991. According to the petitioner, though the lead for water was shown as 300 meters from the site, a ban imposed by the Collector on use of water for construction compelled him to arrange water from a longer distance, resulting in additional expenditure and delay. It is further contended that there was delay on the part of the Department in supplying cement and steel, non-supply of reinforcement schedules for RCC work in time, non-finalization of rates of extra items, and delay in payment of Running Account bills, all of which led to prolongation of the work. Despite the alleged lapses being attributable to the Department, the Executive Engineer withdrew the incomplete work on 10.02.1993 to be executed at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner states that while submitting the tender, he had considered overhead expenses @ 5% and profit @ 10% based on the nature of the work and past experience. Disputes having arisen regarding the amounts due under various heads and no decision being taken by the competent authority, the petitioner filed a Reference before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 8,96,971/-. The Tribunal, however, vide Award dated 12.12.2002, partly allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 48,347/- along with interest and rejected the remaining claims, aggrieved by which the present Revision has been filed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Claim No.1 Loss of Overhead RS.92,274/- and Claim No.2 Loss of Profit Rs.1,84,548/- . The Tribunal has given the following findings.

7.3 The petitioner has established through various documents that materials were not supplied by the respondents at proper time. The petitioner had submitted construction programme on 15.8.1990 (Ex.P.2). Through this letter the petitioner has intimated his requirements of cement and steel for various periods, depending on the stage of work as planned by the petitioner. Thereafter he submitted his requirements of material regularly to the respondents. The petitioner’s work remained held up for want of steel (Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7). The nature of contract work was such that cement was required for most of the items. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the respondents to supply enough stock of the cement to the petitioner so that his work could have been continued smoothly but the respondents supplied the cement in small quantities. The respondents supplied 10 bags cement on 6.5.92, 50 bags on 7.5.92, 90 bags on 15.5.92 (Ex.P.58). In his letter dt. 26.5.92 (Ex.P.58) the petitioner informed the SDO of the respondents that the departmental employee has refused to issue truck load of cement.

Instead of issuing 150 cement bags, the petitioner was asked to lift the c