IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 462 OF 2014 Between: 1. The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayatraj Projects, Engineering Dept., Swamy Rammeathathirtha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Panchayatraj Projects, Engineering Dept., Swamy Ramanathathirtha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Ravi Water Supply Dargamitta, Nellore. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Panchayatraj Department, Guduru, Nellore District. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. A.Neelakanteswara Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 49 years. Special Class Contractor, Resident of 11-38, Pathergatti Nagar, P&T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500 006. J 2. The Hon'ble Justice Sri Vaman Rao, Judge (Rtd) High Court of A.P., Flat No.203, Mahasiva Apartments, Opp: Andhra Mahila Yuvathi Mandel, Barkatpur a, Hyderabad - 500 327. . -.1 ...Respondent (Respondent) Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21/10/2013 in A.O.P.No.520/2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of The Advocate General, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri P Vinayaka Swamy for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The I Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. THREE CD COPIES sam TAC HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 DECREE CMA.No.462 of 2014 I 16 MAY 2025 g ^ . Current aecuon . DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ,N Vm PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 554 OF 2014 Between: A. Neelakanteswara Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 49 years. Special Class Contractor, R/o. 11-38, Pathergatti Nagar, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 500 006. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. The Engineer in Chief, Panchayatraj Prejects, Engineering Dept., Swamy Ramanathathirtha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Panchayatraj Projects, Engineering Dept, Swamy Ramanththeertha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural, Water Supply Circle, Dargamitta Nellore. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Panchayatraj Department, Guduru, Nellore District. 5.. The Hon'ble Justice Sri Vaman Rao Judge (Retd), High Court of A.P., Flat No. 203, Mahasiva Apartments, Opp: Andrha Mahila Yuvathi Mandal, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-500 027. (R5 not necessary party) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996, Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in A.O.P No. 283 of 2009 dt: 21-10-2013 on the file of Court of I Additional District Judge, Nellore. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Vinayaka Swamy, Advocate for the Appellant and The Advocate General (AP) for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. THREE CD COPIES Sam TAC p HIGH COURT DATED;29/04/2025 DECREE CMA.No.554 of 2014 I 16 MAY 2025 Current Section DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE $ aw 1 PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 554 AND 462 OF 2014 C.M.ANO: 554 OF 2014 Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996, Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in A.O.P No. 283 of 2009 dt; 21-10-2013 on the file of Court of I Additional District Judge, Nellore. Between: A. Neelakanteswara Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 49 years. Special Class Contractor, R/o. 11-38, Pathergatti Nagar, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 500 006. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. The Engineer in Chief, Panchayatraj Prejects, Engineering Dept.^ Swamy Ramanathathirtha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Panchayatraj Projects, Engineering Dept, Swamy Ramanththeertha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendirg Engineer, Rural, Water Supply Circle, Dargamitta Nellore. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Panchayatraj, Department, Guduru, Nellore District. 5. The Hon'ble Justice Sri Vaman Rao Judge (Retd), High Court of A.P., Flat No. 203, Mahasiva Apartments, Opp: Andrha Mahila Yuvathi Mandal, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-500 027. (R5 not necessary party) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : SRI P VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) C.M.A NO: 462 OF 2014 Appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21/10/2013 in A.O.P.No.520/2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore. Between: 1. The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayatraj Projects, Engineering Dept., Swamy Rammeathathiftha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Panchayatraj Projects, Engineering Dept., Swamy Ramanathathirtha Bhavan, 5th Floor, Erramanjil Colony, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Ravi Water Supply Dargamitta, Nellore. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Panchayatraj Department, Guduru, Nellore District. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1. A.Neelakanteswara Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 49 years. Special Class Contractor, Resident of 11-38, Pathergatti Nagar, P&T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500 006. 2. The Hon'ble Justice Sri Vaman Rao, Judge (Rtd) High Court of A.P., Flat No.203, Mahasiva Apartments, Opp: Andhra Mahila Yuvathi Mandel, Barkatpur a, Hyderabad - 500 327. ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT) Counsel for the Appellants : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents : SRI P VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : APHC010026162014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AiVlARAVATI (Special Original vJurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRIEiSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 554/2014 Between; A. Neelakanteswara Reddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The Engineer In Cheif Panchayaraj Prejects 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 462/2014 Between: The Engineer-in-chiejf and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND A Neelakanteswara Reddy and Others Counsel for the Appeltant(S): 1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,:i C.M.A.Nos.554 & 462 of 2014 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P VINAYAKA SWyMVIY The Court made the following Common Judgment: (per Hon ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Since both these Appeals arise out of the Court, passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration they are being disposed of by vi/ay of this common judgment. same award and Order of the and Conciliation Act, 1996, 2. Heard Sri P. Vinayaka Swarny, learned appellant/respondent and the learned G appellants/respondents. counsel appearing for the overnment Pleader appearing for the 3. The appellant In C.M.A.No.554 of 2014 Is the Contractor and the appellant in C.M.A.No.462 of 2014 is the Employer. 4. For ease of reference, both the parties Contractor and the Employer. are being referred as the 5. The parties herein, had entered into an agreement, dated 12.03.1998 for execution of a work, relating to a Comprehensive Protected to Tada and other Villages in Nellore District. The Contract, which Water Supply was for a months. The in all respects, by 23.08.2002. 6. On account of disputes, between the parties, the Contractor by dated 22.07.2005, had sought reference of all these disputes to Arbitration. sum of Rs.375.32 lakhs was to be completed within twelve (12) Contractor was able to complete the Contract its letter. 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMRJ C.M.A.Nos.554 & 462 of 2014 The learned Arbitrator, appointed by the High Court on account of the Contractor approaching the High Court, by way of an Arbitration Application bearing No.106 of 2006, had passed an award, dated 25.12.2008. f>. 7. The learned Arbitrator, accepted certain claims made by the Contractor 8. and rejected the remaining claims. Aggrieved by the said award, the Contractor, moved A.O.P.No.283 of 2009 and the Employer moved A.O.P.No.520 of 2009 before the learned 1 Additional District Judge, Nellore. After hearing both sides, the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, dismissed both the petitions, by way of an 9. Order, dated 21.10.2013. Aggrieved by this Order, both the parties have approached this Court, by way of these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 10. The Contractor, had filed Claims 1 (a) to (f), 2 (a) to (g) & 3 to 6. 11. The Contract involved the construction of Overhead Balancing 12. Reservoirs and Overhead Service Reservoirs. The Contractor in Claim 1 (a), contended that, there was a change in the soil conditions due to which the Contractor had to incur extra expenditure as the drawings were modified to meet the soil conditions. The Contractor’s Claim was that, on account of these changes and extra vi/ork, further time was taken and the extra work should be paid by applying the revised S.S.R. rates and in the rates at which the original contrad^ had been awarded. This Claim found favour with the learned i 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J CM.A.Nos.554 & 462 of 2014 Arbitrator, who accepted the contention of the Contractor. Similarly Contractor in Claim 1 (b), contended that, on account of the change in design, certain excavation and sand filling had to be carried out for laying appropriate foundation for Overhead Balancing Reservoirs and Overhead Service Reservoirs leading to additional costs which needs to be compensated by the Employer. This claim had also found favour with the learned Arbitrator. the 13. The Employer challenged the award of compensation under these two heads, on the ground that, there was a clause in the tender conditions that the Contractor would have to inspect and verify the soil conditions before tendering for the Contract. In such circumstances, the Contractor could not have raised a claim for additional compensation, on the ground that, the soil conditions had varied. The Employer, contends that, this aspect was not considered by the learned Arbitrator as well as the District Court, which heard the petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 {herein referred to as ‘the Act). 14. The Employer would also contend that the Claim under Claim 1 (b) for compensation of additional work of excavation and sand filling is inadmissible for the same reason. Further, any such additional work would have to be rectified by way of a supplemental agreement. In the absence of such a supplemental agreement, no compensation would be payable. The Employer would also contend that the learned Arbitrator as well as the District Court had 5 RRR,J & Dr.KMRJ C.M.A.Nos.554 & 462 of 2014 not gone into this question and had ignored this submission made by the Employer. On the other hand, the complaint of the Contractor, against the award passed by the learned Arbitrator was that, the learned Arbitrator had granted interest @ 8%, in relation to certain claims and interest @ 12%, in relation to some of the other claims. The Contractor also contends that, the lack of uniformity in the award on interest is an arbitrary action, which needs to rectified under Section 34 of the Act. 15. A consideration of the objections raised by both sides would show that, these are the objections raised in the manner in which the learned Arbitrator had considered and decided the claims. The objections, raised by both sides would at best b6} objections for taking a view which is different from that of the learned Arbitrator. 16. 17. The scope of interference, in an award is re^stricted under Section 34 of the Act. The scope of review, under this provisioini, has been considered in a catena of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Emta Coai Limited and Anr. 1 Ssangyong Engineering. & Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAlf, Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. \ Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. ‘(2020) 17 see 93 ’ MANU/Se/o^/OS/ZOig : (2019) 15 See 131 ^ IViANU/Se/0792/2019 : (2019) 7 See 236, para 11.1 6 RRRJ & Dr.KMR,J C.M.A.Nos.554 & 462 of 2014 Crompton Greaves Limited"^, Konkan RaiSway Corporation Limited Vs. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking^ and The Security Printing and Minting Corporation of Sndia Limited and Ors. vs. Gandhi Industrial Corporation^. The Hon’ble SJupreme Court has set out the scope for review. In the present cases, except a difference of opinion as to the view that the learned Arbitrator could have taken, no perversity has been pointed out. It is also settled law that, the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the awards passed by the learned Arbitrator unless the conditions set out above 18. are found in the award. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the 19. award of the learned Arbitrator or with the Order of the District Court. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. There 20. shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. 24&25 ■ (2019) 20 see 1, Paras '11SCR215, Paras see 85,120231 15,22-25 4NIANU/Se/1765/2019 5 maNU/SC;0900/2023, (2023) 6 (2007)13 see 236 para 8 (DB) KAWIESWARA RAO ■^OJNT REGISTRAR SEeTtON OFFteER SD/- E //true eopv// To, SPSR Nellore District. 1. The 1 Additional District Judge, Nellore V 2. One CC to Sri P Vinayaka Swamy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri The Advocate General (AP) Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES sam TAG HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE CMA.Nos.554 & 462 of 2014 DISMISSING THESE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS