Case: Manocha Construction Company Vs. State Of M.P.

2. The appellant, a construction company, entered into an agreement on 18.3.1982 with the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh, for the construction of a Dam in Barchar Tank Project, in the Sidhi district. The total cost of the construction was Rs.As per the work order given to the appellant, the appellant was to complete the work within a period of 15 months. The appellant was, however, given several extensions and the last of such extension was to expire on 30.6.1987. Payments were made to the appellant during the course of the progress of the work. The total qantity of the earth work to be done was 5,02,929 Cubic Meters. As per the contract, the appellant was also bound to do an additional 10% of the agreed earth work at the rate given under the agreement. According to the appellant, more than 10% of the agreed quantity of the earth work was carried out and for the additional quantity of the earth work done, a claim was made by him @ Rs. 34.50 per Cubic Meter. The agreed rate for the earth work was Rs. 15/per Cubic Meter. Dispute arose between the parties as to the rate payable for theadditional quantity of the earth work carried out and the matter was referred to the Artbiration Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an award on 14.7.1988 and by this award the rate of Rs. 22/per Cublic Meter was fixed for the additional earth work done by the appellant. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant preferred a Civil Revision (Registered as C.R. No. 459 of 1988) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent State of Madhya Pradesh also filed Civil Revision No. 512 of 1988 against the said award of the Tribunal whereas the Civil Revision filed by the State was dismissed. The revision filed by the appellant ws remitted to the Tribunal with a specific direction, which is to the followingthe aforesaid reasons, the award of compensation for this extra work at Rs. 22/per cubic metre is hereby set aside and to that extent Civil Revision No. 459 of 1988, filed by the State Government of M.P. and others is hereby dismissed. The matter shall go back to the arbitration Tribunal, which shall, after giving due opportunit to the contractor, i.e, M/s Manocha Construction Co., for the additional work done, in accordance with the provisions of clause 4.3.13.3 of the agreement. We affirm the finding of the tribunal as to the contriactors entitlement to the compensation for this additional work done.Pursuant to the above Revisional order, the matter was again considered by the ?Arbitration Tribunal and a fresh award was passed on 16.3.1992. the Trbunal held that the work relating to the additional quantity of the earth was in respect of a temporary `bund and the construction of the same was completed by November/December, 1985 Therefore, in view of(d) of Clause 4.3.13.3, the rate had to be fixed on the basis of the then prevailing market rate. On that basis the claim of the appellant was considered and it was held that the appellant was entitled to get at the rate of Rs. 15.70 per Cubic Meter. The award thus passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, but the Division Bench by its order and judgment as aforesid, declined to interfere with the same. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
10. On the basis of the above clause, the Tribunal considered the prevailing market rates, including the cost of material and labour charges and an additional 15% was added to cover the sundry charges to arrive at the rate. The details are given in the award. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any defect or illegality committed by the Tribunal in fixing the rate payable for the additional work. When it was proved that the additional earth work as completed in November/December, 1985, there was nothing wrong in fixing the amount based on the rate prevalent at that time.11. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that by its earlier award dated 14.7.1988 the Arbitration Tribunal had fixed the rate of Rs. 22/per Cubic Meter for the earth work and that the Civil Revision filed by the respondent State Govt. against that award had been dismissed. Therefore, it was argued that at least the appellant should be entitled to get therate of Rs. 22/per Cubic Meter. we do not find any substance in this contention. In the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26.7.1990, it was specifically stated that the rate for the additional earth work is to be refixed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 4.3.13.3 of the agreement and it was accordingly done by the Tribunal. When a fresh award has been passed by the Tribunal. whatever award passed by it earlier loses its significance.12. We are of the view that the appellant failed to establish that there was any error of jurisdiction, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by the Revisional court.