LexJ.C. BUDHRAJA versus CHAIRMAN, ORISSA MINING CORPN. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I [2008] 1 S.C.R. 821 ~ J.C. BUDHRAJA A ' II. CHAIRMAN, ORISSA MINING CORPN. LTD. & ANR. (C.A. Nos. 1971-1973 of 2000) JANUARY 18, 2008 B [H.K. SEMA, G.P. MATHUR & R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] ~ i Contract - Work contract - On completion, contractor claiming extra payment for the work done beyond the contract - Payment for the work under contract received under protest c - Constitution of Committee for consideration of extra payment - Statement quantifying the claim, produced before the Committee - Committee accepting the same only in part - Contractor issuing notice invoking arbitration - Legal heir of the contractor, making a claim before the arbitrafor, different D from the claim made before the Committee -Arbitrator passing ---1 the award for an amount over and above the claimed amount - Propriety of- Held: Award in respect of the amount over and above the claim made before the Committee was barred by limitation -Limitation period in respect the pending claims E which were made before the Committee having been acknowledged stood extended - It is not permissible for a legal heir to make fresh claim before an arbitrator, which was not made by his predecessor in interest - Arbitrator committed error on the face of the record and a legal misconduct in --+ holding that entire claim was within time - Arbitrator also F exceeded his jurisdiction in passing award for an amount more than what was claimed- Arbitration Act, 1940 -: s. 8(2) - Limitation Act, 1963 -s. 18 Predecessor in interest of the appellant entered into G contract with the respondent for removal of over-burden --r by excavation. After completion of the work by the contractor, respondent prepared final bill which was further revised in March-April, 1977 amounting to Rs. 1, 49, 190, 76-74. The contractor accepted the amount under 821 H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R. A protest. Contractor claimed that he executed additional work beyond that provided in the contract and thus claimed extra payment for the same. He made several representations in this regard. As a result, by a letter dated 28.10.1978, respondent informed that a Committee would B be constituted to consider the claim. By letter dated 16.11.1978, contractor sent a statement quantifying the claims in respect of the contract in question amounting to Rs. 50, 15,820/-. Committee prepared its final report t dated 28.10.1979. The Committee admitted the claim only c to an extent of Rs. 3,50,000/- and rest of the claim was not accepted. Information to this effect was given by the respondent to the contractor by a letter dated 4.3.1980. Contractor sent a notice dated 4.6.1980 invoking arbitration in respect of the pending claims. In the D meantime he also moved application u/s 8 (2) of Arbitration Act, 1940. During the pendency of the application the appellant was substituted as legal heir of the original ~- contractor. In the meantime, after amendment of the Arbitration Act, State Government formed Special Arbtiral E Tribunal to settle the disputes. The appellant filed a claim statement before the arbitrator, the nature and quantum whereof was different from what was claimed before the Committee. Appellant, abandoned the claim to an extent of Rs. 21,83, 692/- out of the previous claim of Rs. 50, 15,820/- and made further new claim. The whole claim F was totaling to Rs. 95,96,616/-. During the proceedings, -+ • appellant contended that out of Rs. 149,88,566.90 received from the respondent and taken into credit towards the contract in question, a sum of Rs. 29,86,871/- was appropriated towards other contracts and therefore the G amount paid should be considered as Rs. 120,01,695-99. The arbitrator passed the award for an amount more than i-- the amount claimed i.e. increasing the liability of the respondent by Rs. 29,86,871/- with interest @ 12% per annum. The award was for claims in respect of work under H the contract, the•work which waS"llot part of the contract J.C. BUDHRAJA v. CHAIRMAN, ORISSA MINING 823 CORPN. LTD. & ANR. i and in respect of escalation in cost of labour and material A on account of delay in execution. Appellant filed suit for making the award rule of the court. Respondent objected to it. The court made the award rule of the court. Respondent filed appeal against the order. Appellant also challenged the order claiming future interest from. the date B of the decree. High Court allowed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.