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 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 829 of 2002 D.A.MURJANI Versus THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS Appearance:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

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 13.02.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 49/1995, whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the Reference filed by the petitioner.

2. The contract for the construction of the New Judicial Court Building at Bhind, along with water supply and sanitary fittings, was awarded to the petitioner under Agreement No. 22/86-87. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 20.96 lakhs at 42.6% above the C.S.R. The stipulated period for completion was 18 months, excluding the rainy season. The work order was issued on 07.06.1986, and accordingly, the stipulated date of completion was

06.12.1988. The petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated period. According to the petitioner, the delay occurred due to the respondent’s failure to furnish structural designs and drawings, layout, electrification details, intermittent allotment of additional work, short supply of cement, and absence of formal extension orders. The work was ultimately completed in March 1990, as reflected in the Memo dated 29.03.1990 issued by respondent No. 4. The total value of work executed by the petitioner amounted to Rs. 40.75 lakhs. While granting extensions, the department did not levy any penalty upon the petitioner.

3. By the impugned award dated 13.02.2002, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s claims Rs.1,89,6000/-relating to infructuous overheads, Rs.94,800/-loss of profitability , Rs.35,650/-loss due to alleged wrong payment for brick work, Rs.7,560/- overlaps in reinforcement on account of delayed designs of columns and plinth beams, Rs.9650/- loss due to sanction of low rate for lift of timber formwork, Rs.67,560/-loss due to sanction of low rate for cofferdam filling, Rs.52,750 refund of royalty, and Rs.10,620/- escalation on the cost of work for which payment had not been made. However, allowed the claim Rs. 14,537/- for refund of security deposit and interest on the withheld security deposit for the period from 06.09.1993 to

06.07.1996, but disallowed interest on the security deposit.

4. It is submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in the revision that finding of the Tribunal on facts and law regarding the claims relating to loss caused due to delay in furnishing structural drawings, designs, layout, absence of formal extension orders, and intermittent allotment of additional work is perverse. The evidence on record clearly established a delay of 195 days in furnishing drawings and designs, which the Tribunal failed to recognize. The finding of the Tribunal that the work did not suffer due to delay in supply of structural drawings and details is wholly perverse. The dates taken by the Tribunal for execution of excavation, steel reinforcement, footings and columns up to plinth, excavation for plinth beam and concreting thereof are based merely on measurement book entries and not on actual execution. The Tribunal misconduct itself by ignoring the evidence led by the petitioner. Drawings and designs ought to have been supplied in advance to enable necessary preparation. There was additional delay of three months in painting due to default in electrical work being executed by another agency, and a further delay of nineteen months due to additional work of tiles, culvert etc., which the Tribunal failed to consider. The Tribunal committed serious error in not considering letters Ex. P-3 to P-7, wherein delay has either been admitted by the non-applicant or clearly shown to be attributable to the respondents.

5. The