Telangana High Court
The Assistant Chief Engineer ... vs M/S. Priyadarshini Engg. Works ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: M.Laxman
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1422 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed
against common judgment dated 21.09.2007 in Arbitration
O.P.No.214 of 2005 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2005
on the file of District Judge, Karimnagar. The said civil
miscellaneous appeal and arbitration O.P. are directed against the
award dated 19.04.2004, whereunder the claims of the respondent
No.1 herein, who was the claimant were partly allowed and partly
dismissed.
2. The appellant herein aggrieved by the orders in favour of
respondent No.1 herein preferred arbitration O.P and respondent
No.1 herein aggrieved by disallowing of certain prayers preferred
civil miscellaneous appeal before the Court below. The Court below
by way of the impugned common judgment partly allowed the claim
of respondent No.1 herein by enhancing first running bill amount
from Rs.2,09,116.13/- to Rs.2,70,834.13/- and rest of the claim
made by respondent No.1 herein was rejected and consequently,
the claims of the appellant were also dismissed confirming the
ML,J
CMA_1422_2008
findings of the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal is at the instance of the respondent before the Arbitrator.
3. The main challenge in the present appeal is that the
Arbitrator has not taken into consideration the readiness expressed
by the appellant to pay amounts due under the contract to
respondent No.1 and in fact, respondent No.1 did not show any
inclination to receive the amounts, which it is entitled under the
contract. It is also contended that the appellant has disallowed the
claim regarding the price of supply of steel and MS plates, but for
rest of the amounts they were ready and in fact the respondent
No.1 have not received rest of the amounts, as such they are not
entitled for any such amount.
4. None appeared and there is no representation from the
respondents.
5. Admittedly, the amounts which are ordered to refund were
not assailed before this Court and the only challenge is with regard
to grant of interest and some other amounts relating to transport
charges and other charges. The scope of appeal is very limited.
The appellate Courts would only interfere in the award when there
is perversity in the findings. In the present case, admittedly
ML,J
CMA_1422_2008
appellant retained the amounts which respondent No.1 is entitled
to receive towards the work done by them. There is no material to
show that the appellant has shown any inclination to refund the
amount. Admittedly, the amount is with appellant only and they
have enjoyed the amount which the respondent No.1 is entitled to
receive. The Arbitrator also granted interest towards the loss
sustained by the respondent No.1 herein for usage of amount by
appellant, which respondent No.1 is entitled for. Such findings of
the Arbitrator or the Court below do not suffer from any lack of
jurisdiction or perversity. Therefore, this civil miscellaneous appeal
is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed
confirming the common judgment dated 21.09.2007 in Arbitration
O.P.No.214 of 2005 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2005
on the file of District Judge, Karimnagar. There shall be no order
as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand
closed.
______________
M.LAXMAN, J
Date: 23.01.2023
GVR/TU
