c'^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CIVIL REVISION N0. 50 /08 ^ APPLICANT(S) / PETITIONER(S) 'p'^rA^ ^ ST ^ M/s Neetesh Construction Co. € Contractor, House No. 48, ^Q^ Lakherapura, Bhopal ^d ^ ^n •^;.^^^' .....^)-;')'^""5 RESPONDENTfS) NON-APPLICANT(S) ^ €^^ ^^. •^ ^y ^ VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Water Resources Department Raipur. (2) The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Construction Circle, Raipur (3) The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Construction, Division Kasdol, District Raipur REVISION U/S 19 OF THE MADHYA PRADBSH/C.G. MADHYASTHAM ADHIKARAN ADHINiyAM 1983 AMSING OUT OF AWARD^ASS^LBY HATTISGARH MADHYASTHAM^ADHIKARAN RAIPJUR IN RBFBRBNCB PETITION NO?<1/2005, DATED'I^TH DECEMBER 2007 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ApplicanttsV Petitionerfsl CivH Revision No. 50 of 2008 M/s Neetesh Constructton Co. RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Revision Under Secticn 19 of the<CG M^hy^ham AdNkaran Adhinivam, 1983 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate for the applicant. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15tn day of September, 2010) Per: I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. The instant revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Chhattjsgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1983) against the award dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, in reference case No. 81/2005, with a prayer to modify the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the claim of infructuous overhead and loss of profit be made payable and the pendeentilite interest @ 9 percent may be ordered. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has not pressed other prayer except interest @ 9 percent be ordered. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant is a contractor. The construction work of road bridge at CH 647 & 746 and ^;,^te^ //" ^. j ^.^ ^•^' .^ PB w drainage crossing at CG 554 of Jonk main canal was awarded to the applicant vide contract agreement No. 27/DL of 1982-83 and completion period was flxed as 6 months excluding rainy reason. The work order was issued on 14.03.1983. The applicant was granted extension up to 28.05.84,15.06.85, 31.03.87 and 30.06.1989 as the saki workwas not completed within the stipulated time and ultimately the work was completed on 30.06.1989. The applicant made a reference under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1983, daiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,23,100/- in respect of losses suffered by him while executing the said construction work. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,64,7201- in favour of applicant denying the pendentlite interest on the claimed amount. Hence this revision. It is necessary to peruse paragraph 20 & 21 of the award whfoh is reproduced as under: "20. While calculating the interest on the amount of final bill @ 9 % p.a. on 13,372/- from 01.10.89 and on the amount of security depositof Rs. 1,34,090/- from 01.07.90 till the date of reference i.e. 06.04.99, the interest comes to Rs. 11,457/- and Rs. 1,05.801/- respectively. Thus, total amount of interest comes to Rs. 1,17,258/- payable to the petitioner. However, in facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the petition is not entitled to pendentlite interest on the above amounts. To sum up, the petition is entitled to the payments of his final bill amounting to Rs. 13.372/- and refund ^^^^ :y^ fi ^ 8. 9. of security deposit including earnest money of Rs. 1,34.090/- totaling to Rs. 1,47,462/- together with its interest @ 9 % p.a. as compensation by way of interest of Rs. 1,17,258/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled forthe total payment of Rs. 2,64,720/-. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, this reference is partly allowed and an award of Rs. 2,64,720/- is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The petitloner is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on this amount from the date of award till its realization. He is also entitled to proportionate cost of the reference petition on the amount of award and pleaders fee, if certified, as per schedule. The memo of the cost be drawn up accordingly." The Tribunal, on the one hand, awarded interest on pre reference period @ 9% p.a. and also made same interest for the post award period, denied the award interest during pendentlite period for which no reason has been given when the Tribunal has awarded interest for pre reference period. Seeing no justification for denial of interest during pendentlite period, we are of the opinion that it is a good case for interference of this court under Sectton 19 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1983. In view of above, we allow this revlsion and dtrect that the revisionist shall be entitled to get interest @ 9 percent per annum during pendentlite period of the award. No order asto costs. — Sahu Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge