NAND CONTR.& ENGR.THR.G.D.AHUJA Vs NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD.
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-006262-006262 / 2012
Diary number: 12136 / 2008
Advocates: Vs
GP. CAPT. KARAN SINGH BHATI
Page 1
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6262 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.24337 of 2009
NAND CONTR. & ENGR. THR G.D. AHUJA … Appellant(s)
Versus
NORTHERN COAL FIELDS LTD. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6263 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.31125 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6265 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10681 of 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6264 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.32878 of 2009
And CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6266 OF 2012
@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.18183 of 2009
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Page 2
2
1. Leave granted.
2. We may take up Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) No.24337 of 2009 as a lead case which arises out of a
common judgment dated 14.11.2007 of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur. In the first three appeals, we are concerned
with the claim on interest alone and, in the other two appeals, the
question involved is with regard to the claim for interest, water
charges and the cost of plaster of paris.
3. The appellant was awarded the work relating to the
construction of residential and non-residential building at Central
Excavation Training Institute (CETI) vide work order dated
25.2.1987 for an amount of Rs.68,91,589/-. Appellant submits
that for want of final drawings and delay in the supply of cement
and other construction materials, including supply of water, the
work was delayed, but completed on 1.4.1989 and handed over the
buildings to the respondent. There was delay on the part of the
respondents in preparing and sanctioning the final bills which gave
rise to various disputes and ultimately the matter was referred to a
sole arbitrator. The arbitrator passed an award dated 30.10.1999
Page 3
3
on the claims made by the appellant including claims for water
charges and plaster of paris. So far as the claim for interest is
concerned, the arbitrator awarded simple interest @ 15% per
annum from six months of the date of completion i.e. 1.4.1989 on
all the amounts awarded till the date of payment. Further, it was
also ordered that in case the payment was delayed beyond three
months of the date of the award, interest be paid @ 18% per annum
from the date of payment. No payment was made within three
months from the date of the award. Hence, according to the
appellants, as per the award he was entitled for 15% interest from
six months of the date of completion i.e. 1.4.1989 on the amounts
awarded by the Arbitrator till the date of payment.
4. Award passed by the Arbitrator was challenged by the
respondent before the First Additional District Judge, Sidhi who did
not upset the award on merits, but modified the interest awarded
by the Arbitrator and substituted with 12% per annum simple
interest from the date of the award i.e. 31.10.1999 till the date of
payment. Aggrieved by the said order, appeals were preferred by
the appellant before the High Court. The High Court disposed of all
Page 4
4
the appeals, reducing the interest to 10% per annum. The High
Court has also set aside the award on the claim for water charges
and plaster of paris. Being aggrieved by the judgment, as already
stated, these appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
5. We have heard Shri Rohit Arya and Shri Mahabir Singh,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant and
respondents, respectively. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel
submitted that that the High Court as well as the District Court
were not justified in interfering with the well considered award
passed by the Arbitrator. Learned senior counsel submitted that
the reasons stated by the High Court are incorrect and contrary to
the terms of contract as well as documents produced before the
arbitrator. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Arbitrator
was justified in allowing the claim of water charges to the tune of
Rs.1,68,890.25. Reference was also made to clauses 5(a) and (b) of
General Conditions applicable to the contract and submitted that it
is the responsibility of the respondents to supply the water at their
costs. Learned senior counsel also submitted the claim for plaster
Page 5
5
of paris which was rightly allowed by the arbitrator and there was
no reason to interfere with the same.
6. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there is no reason
to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which has rightly
rejected the claims on water charges and plaster of paris and also
reduced the rate of interest. Further, no question of law arises for
consideration in these appeals.
7. We are of the view that the dispute between the parties lies in
a narrow compass. We find that the arbitrator has awarded simple
interest @ 15% per annum from six months of the date of
completion i.e. 1.4.1989 on the amounts awarded till the date of
payment. The High Court thought it fit to reduce the rate of
interest to 10% per annum, which we find no reason to disturb.
The period for which the Arbitrator has awarded the interest will
remain the same. The appellant, therefore, would be entitled to get
interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1.4.1989 till the date of
payment.
Page 6
6
8. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the amount awarded in respect of the water charges
which comes to Rs.1,68,890.25. Going by the general terms and
conditions of the contract, in our view, the department was bound
to supply water, so found by the arbitrator, in our view, rightly.
Therefore, that part of the award of the Arbitrator, with regard to
the water charges, is upheld. However, the High Court, in our view,
rightly denied the claim with regard to plaster of paris, therefore,
not interfered with. Appeals are disposed of accordingly, subject
to the above modification of the judgment of the High Court.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
…....................................J
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
…....................................J (Dipak Misra)
New Delhi, September 4, 2012