TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... last date for completion of the work, as per extended time, was 31-3-1998. According to the contractor, except for few minor works that remained to be verified, it completed the work by 31-3-1998 but the respondents did not pass the final bill. 3. For resolution of the disputes in relation to the above contract, the contractor sought appointment of an arbitrator but the arbitrator was not appointed by the respondents. The contractor, then, approached the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 1996 Act ). After hearing the parties, the Chief Justice allowed the application made by the contractor under Section 11 of the 1996 Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecunderabad, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad passed on 4-7-2002 and modified the award dated 31-12-2000 passed by the arbitrator with regard to Claims 4, 6, 8 and 11. 8. Mr Anil Kumar Tandale, learned counsel for the contractor assailed the judgment of the High Court mainly with regard to Claim 4. He extensively referred to the reasons given by the arbitrator in awarding rate of ₹ 210 per cubic metre for the work relating to cutting the earth and sectioning to profile . Mr Tandale submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 11. Thus, as per the con tract, the contractor was to be paid for cutting the earth and sectioning to profile, etc. @ ₹ 110 per cubic metre. There may be some merit in the contention of Mr Tandale that the contractor was required to spend huge amount on the rock blasting work but, in our view, once the rate had been fixed in the contract for a particular work, the contractor was not entitled to claim additional amount merely because he had to spend more for carrying out such work. The whole exercise undertaken by the arbitrator in determining the rate for the work at Serial No. 3 of Schedule A was beyond his competence and authority. It was not open to the arbitrator to rewrite the terms of the contract and award t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
