9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords the appellant was held entitled to a net amount of ₹ 67,82,620/- with the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of award till the date of payment or till the date of decree whichever was earlier. While the appellant applied for making the said award a Rule of the Court, the respondent- corporation filed objections seeking to have the award set aside. The learned Single Judge overruled the objections of the respondent-corporation and made the award a Rule of the Court. Corporation appealed against the same, which has been partly allowed by the Division Bench. The appellant had claimed various amounts under as many as 19 heads, while the respondent-corporation claimed certain amounts under three heads. The arbitrators rejected the appellant`s claim under heads 3,5,7,8,10,11,12 and 18. They awarded various amounts under the other heads, the total of which came to ₹ 1,09,04,789/-. So far as the respondent`s claims are concerned, the arbitrators rejected claim No.2 but accepted claim No.1 (partly) and awarded various amounts totalling ₹ 41,22,178/-. In the appeal before the Division Bench the respondent- corporation confined its attack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttack only to claims 1,4,6,9 and 13. The Division Bench rejected the respondent`s contentions with respect to claims 1 and 13 but upheld the same with respect to claims 4,6 and 9. Only the appellant has come to this Court challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench. We shall deal with these three claims in their proper order. Claim No. 4 Appellant`s claim NO.4 arises on account of the shortage of cement in the bags supplied by the respondent. The appellant`s case was that the corporation had undertaken to supply cement to it in bags, each bag containing 50 kg. of cement, but a matter of fact, the cement actually found in the bags was less. The appellant complained of the same to the officers of the corporation from time to time and a record of the shortages has indeed been kept by the parties. On this count, the appellant claimed a sum of ₹ 3,96,984.50p., against which the arbitrators awarded an amount of ₹ 3,70,221.50 paise. The defence of the corporation was that according to the stipulation contained in Schedule - A to the Tender notice, the corporation was not to be held responsible for any variation in the weight of the cement in the bags supplied by them. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement. On the other hand, the learned Attorney General submitted that the modified or qualified in any manner by the appellant's letter dated 10th January, 1985, and, therefore, the Division Bench was right in rejecting this claim as prohibited by the agreement between the parties. We are of the opinion that it appears to be border- line case. It is possible to take either view. It must be remembered that in this case there is no formal contract and the terms of the agreement have to be inferred from the Tender notice and the correspondence between the parties. Since the attempt of the Court should always be to support the award within the letter of law, we are inclined to uphold the award on this count [claim No.4]. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Division Bench to the above extent. The amount awarded by the arbitrators under this claim is affirmed. Claim No.6: The claim of the appellant under this head is in a sum of ₹ 53,11,735.60p, against which the Arbitrators have awarded an amount of ₹ 49,91,327/-. The dispute between the parties is with respect to the method/mode of measuring the constructed area. The case of the respondent is that accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hibited by the terms of the agreement. In this case, the agreement between the parties clearly says that in measuring the build-up area, the balcony area should be excluded. The arbitrators could not have acted contrary to the said stipulation and awarded any awarded any amount to the appellant on the account. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the Division Bench on this score [Claim No.6] Claim No.9: The appellant claimed an amount of ₹ 32,21,099.89p. Under this head, against which the arbitrators have awarded a sum of ₹ 16,31,425/-. The above claim was made on account of escalation in the cost of construction during the period subsequent to the expiry of the original contract period. The appellant's claim on this account was resisted by the respondent-corporation with reference to and on the basis of the stipulation in the corporations' acceptance letters dated 10th January, 1985 which stated clearly that the above price is firm and is not subject to any escalation under whatsoever ground till the completion of the work . The Division Bench held, and in our opinion rightly, that in the face of the said express stipulation between the parties, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
