STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. MIS. FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 31

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. MIS. FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.pdf

Judgment text

-I [2009) 10 S. C. R. 31 " - Re: Counter claims of the em~lo)ler 39. Out of the five counter-claims of the employer, the Arbitrator has allowed only counter-claim no. (3). Counter-claim no. (3) was for refund of mobilization advance (Rs. 79,87,846) with interest and the Arbitrator has awarded Rs. 59,42,275/- with interest at the contract rate of 18% per annum up to the date of decree/payment whichever was earlier. Counter-claims 1, 2, s 4 and 5 made by the appellant against the contractor have been rejected. They are: Counter Brief description of counter Amount of claim No. claim counter claim . 1 Liquidated damages Rs. 99, 19,460/- 2 Extra cost in getting work Rs. 6,66,62,000/completed through another agency 4. Interest on payments made to Rs. 2, 17,42, 168/the contractor and not utilized . 5. Costs Rs.

2,50,000/- Counter-claims 1, 2, & 4 have been considered by the arbitrator and rejected by the arbitrator on the ground that the delays/ , breaches were on the part of the appellant and therefore, the question of claiming these amounts does not arise. Rejection of counter-claim (5) is consequential. As noticed above, the court does not sit in appeal over the award of the arbitrator and cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. The award on these items do not attract any of the · grounds on which award could be set aside. Therefore, rejection of these claims is also not open to interference. 40. We therefore allow these appeals in part and modify the judgments of the courts below as indicated above. Resultantly: (A) The award of Arbitrator on claim no. (1) (Rs. 33,06,500/-) and claim 37A (Rs. 12,072/- per day from 21. 9. 1994 till date of payment) are set aside.

(B) The award of Arbitrator on claims 2 and 16, 3 and 15, 5 and 18, 6 and 17, 9 and 19, 11 and 20, 24, 27 and 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 (with 25 & 24) aggregating to Rs. 1,34,24,407/- is upheld. (C) Interest shall be payable at 9% p. a. on ·- Rs. 1,34,24,407/- from 3. 9. 1990 till date of payment. The award on claims 12 & 13 is modified accordingly. (D) Award of Rs. 59,42,275/- in respect of counter-claim no. (3) of appellant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of release upto the date of payment is upheld. (E) The direction for adjustment of the amount due under counter-claim no. (3) calculated as on 21. 9. 1994, against the amounts found due to the contractor calculated as on 21. 9. 1994 is upheld. Consequently, the appellant shall release the title deeds deposited in regard to the planUmachinery of the contractor. The contractor will be entitled to remove the plant, if it is not already done.

(F) Rejection of claims 4, 7, 8, 10 &21, 14, 22, 23, 26, 38, 39, 40, 41 & 41A, 42 & 42A and 43 of the contractor and counter-claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the employer are upheld. ~G) Parties to bear their respective costs. >- R. P. Appeals partly allowed.