Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Gujarat vs As

High Court Of Gujarat|28 June, 2012
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Civil Revision Applications and as such they arise out of common judgement and award passed by learned Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Arbitration Reference No.67/1995 and Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.
2. Facts leading to these Civil Revision Applications, in nutshell, are as under:
That the original claimant - contractor - M/s.New Modern Construction Company - applicant of Civil Revision Application Nos.410/1997 and 411/1997 approached the Tribunal by filing Arbitration Reference No.67 of 1995 claiming in all a sum of Rs.4,67,721/- from the respondent - Gujarat Electricity Board, under different heads, as under:
"Claim No.A: Amounting to Rs.18,571/- for the work done but not paid;
Claim No.B: Rs.4,700/- part rate;
Claim No.C: Rs.19,250/- security deposit;
Claim No.D: Rs.20,000/- penalty/compensation;
Claim No.E: Rs.7,200/- Loss of 4 trucks bricks;
Claim No.F: Rs.1,84,000/- Loss of profit;
Claim No.G: Rs.2,12,500/- Overhead establishment charges.
Claim No.H: Interest on claims No.A to G:
He has claimed interest at the rate of 18%, that is, the total amount of the claim is Rs.4,64,221/- + interest."
3. That respondents - Gujarat Electricity Board also submitted Counter Claim Arbitration Reference, which was numbered as Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996 claiming Rs.2,25,869.95 ps. from original applicant - contractor, under different heads, as under:
"(1) Rs.439/-
towards income-tax.
(2) Rs.3360/-
towards cement.
(3) Rs.2,09,121/54 towards recovery due to work carried out by other agency.
(4) 15% towards supervision charges.
(5) Rs.31,017/12 ps. towards the charges for delay."
4. Both the parties led documentary evidence and on appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed claim Nos.A and C fully and partly allowed claim No.B holding that the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs.509/- instead of Rs.4,700/- claim and rejected all other claims and consequently held that original contractor is entitled to Rs.45,757.88 ps. On appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal held that in the Counter Claim Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996, Gujarat Electricity Board is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.53,172/- and rejected the counter claim No.2 and other claims except claim No.3 and partly allowed counter claim No.3 by holding that respondents - Gujarat Electricity Board shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.53,172/- and consequently partly allowed the Arbitration Reference No.67 of 1995 and Counter Claim Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996 to the aforesaid extent, meaning thereby, under the impugned judgement and award declared by the Tribunal, Gujarat Electricity Board shall be entitled to recover Rs.53,172/- and original claimant - contractor shall be entitled to recover Rs.45,757.88 ps. together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by learned Tribunal dated 19/12/1996 passed in Arbitration Reference No.67 of 1995 and Counter Claim Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996, both original claimant as well as Gujarat Electricity Board have preferred these Civil Revision Applications u/s.12 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act,1992.
6. Having heard Mr.Keyur Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant - contractor - applicants of Civil Revision Application Nos.410/1997 and 411/1997 and Mr.Jayant Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants of Civil Revision Application Nos.192/1997 and 193/1997 and considering the impugned judgement and award passed by learned Tribunal, it appears to the Court that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in holding that original contractor shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.45,757.88 ps. and the original respondents - Gujarat Electricity Board shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.53,172/- in the Counter Claim Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996 preferred by them. Learned Tribunal has considered each claim/counter-claim in detail and has dealt with and have given the cogent reasons while allowing/ partly allowing the Arbitration Reference and the same are on appreciation of evidence, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective applicants are not in a position to point out how the findings of facts given by the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. Considering the entire judgement and award passed by learned Tribunal and discussion of the learned Tribunal on each claim/counter-claim and evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in holding that original claimant shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.45,757.88 ps. and Gujarat Electricity Board is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.53,172/- in the Counter Claim Arbitration Reference No.9 of 1996 filed by them. Finding of facts given by the learned Tribunal are on appreciation of evidence.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, all these Civil Revision Applications fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged in each of the Civil Revision Applications. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gujarat vs As

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgementDate
28 June, 2012