SRI K. MARAPPAN (DEAD) THROUGH SOLE LR. BALASUBRAMANIAN versus THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER T.B.P.H.L.C. CIRCLE ANANTAPUR

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 27-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
SRI K. MARAPPAN (DEAD) THROUGH SOLE LR.
BALASUBRAMANIAN
v.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER T.B.P.H.L.C.
CIRCLE ANANTAPUR
(Civil Appeal Nos.159-170 of  2010)
MARCH 27, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Arbitration Act, 1940: Respondent- State invited tender for
carrying out irrigation works – Appellant quoted the lowest rates
and entered into three agreements – Under the agreements, appellant
raised 9 claims – Arbitrator rejected claim Nos.6 and 8 whereas he
awarded various sums in regard to the other claims – Respondent-
State filed the applications for setting aside the award under ss.30
and 33 of the Act – Appellant moved suits for making the award
decree of the Court under the Act –  Certain claims which were
awarded by the Arbitrator, however, did not meet with approval of
the sub-Judge and he agreed with the respondent-State – High Court
found that the arbitration awards were totally unsustainable in view
of clause 59 of the Agreement – In the instant appeals, the appellant
raised claim no.1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 only – Claim No.1 was made towards
extra lead of 4 kms/6 kms - stone and metal – The case of the
appellant-contractor was that contractor was to quarry and take
stones and metal from a specified quarry which was located at a
shorter distance than from where the contractor had to actually
quarry the stones and metal and thereafter transport the materials
to the work site, which resulted in extra rate and extra expenditure
and, therefore, claimed  Rs. 15 per cubic meter – Held: Under clause
59 while extension of time on account of delay or hindrance was
allowed, any claim for compensation on account of delay or
hindrance on account of any cause did not lie – Since Claim no.1
was based on the expenditure which the contractor had purported
to incur on this score,  he was entitled to difference in the rate – The
claim for Rs.15/- per cu.m. was based on abnormal increase in
transport charges due to increase in cost of fuel, automobile spare
      [2019] 5 S.C.R. 152
  152
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
parts etc – If escalated rates are claimed then it may attract the
wrath of Clause 59 – The amount must be awarded on the basis of
the cost of conveyance being calculated at the rate of Rs.13.75 –
The decision of sub-court is sustained exercising power under
Art.142 under this claim.
Claim No.3 – Non-supply of food grains as per the conditions
of the agreement –  Under the food for work programme of the
Central Government, food grains were to be made available by the
respondent and part of the wages of the works was to be supplied
by the appellant in food grains as part of the contractual obligation
– It was the case of the appellant that the food grains were not
supplied though it was available – Consequently, the appellant had
to supply food grains to his workers by procuring the food grains
at higher prices from the open market – The arbitrator noted the
argument of the State that the relevant clause only contemplated
making available food grains, if it was available – The arbitrator
proceeded to award various sums under the three contracts on the
basis that the appellant was constrained to expend money for
supplying his workers by purchasing food grains from the open
market – Held: In terms of agreement, the appellant was to supply
the food grains only if the food grains were made available by the
Government – Therefore, it is totally untenable for the appellant to
set up a case that attracted by the clause which resulted from the
representation and negotiation, he submitted his tender –  Appellant
was not bound to pay the fair wages to the workers and he was not
also liable to offer food grains apart from fair wages – A perusal
of the clause would make it clear that what was contemplated was
if the food grains were available and supplied, the appellant was to
make use of the same, supplied it to the workers ‘in lieu of wages’.
Claim No.4 – Reimbursement of short supply of cement – It
was the case of the appellant-contractor that in order to achieve
progress, he procured cement from outside –  The department
contended that cement was in fact supplied as per the contract and
the contractor was not authorized to purchase cement from outside
and further contractor did not produce any vouchers – Department
further relied on Clause 10 of the contract which provided that no
claim for compensation for non-supply of cement would lie – The
arbitrato

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.