1 (CR No. 54 of 2017 & CR No. 126 of 2017) 2025:CGHC:5069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 54 of 2017 1 - M/s Kanhaiyalal Mangatram A Partnership Firm Duly Registered With The Registrar Of Firms And Societies Having Its Office At A/11, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh And Represented Through Its Partner Mr. Vijay Chhugani, Aged About 45 Years S/o Late Shri P.D.Chhugani, R/o A/11, Gayatri Nagar, Near Jagannath Temple, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. B And R Division No.2 Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant :- Mr.Ashok Mishra, Counsel For Non-applicant-State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate CR No. 126 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Public Works Department , Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.2, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant(s) versus 1 - M/s Kanhaiyalal Mangatram A- V Class Contractor, A- 11, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Kanhaiyalal Chhugani, Partner Of M/s Kanhaiyalal Mangatram., Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.04 10:59:25 +0530 2 (CR No. 54 of 2017 & CR No. 126 of 2017) For Applicant-State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Non-applicant :- Mr. Ashok Mishra, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28.01.2025 1. Since common question of fact and law are involved, these two civil revisions are clubbed together, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. These civil revisions filed under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, are directed against the common impugned award dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, whereby Reference Case No.17/2006 (M/s. Kanhaiyalal mangatram Vs State of Chhattisgarh) has been partly allowed and the contractor – M/s. Kanhaiyalal mangatram has been awarded Rs.11,92,396/- along with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of award till its realization, also entitled for amount of court fees for the proportionate amount of court fees payable on the award. 3. 3. The contractor-M/s Kanhaiyalal mangatram is mainly aggrieved on account of non-payment of price escalation to the tune of Rs.2,04,436/- and non-payment of interest on all due amounts. However, as per the revision filed by the State of Chhattisgarh, since there is a delay of five years in completing the work, therefore, any amount could not 3 (CR No. 54 of 2017 & CR No. 126 of 2017) have been awarded to the contractor and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned Counsel for the contractor/ applicant in CR No.54/2017 would submit that the learned tribunal is absolutely unjustified in not granting the amount of Rs.2,04,346/- for short payment of escalation clause and not granting interest on due amount from the date of filing of reference petition i.e. 14.07.1997 till the date of award i.e. 21.02.2017 and, therefore, impugned award deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned counsel for the State submits that both the aforesaid claims have not been made by the contractor before the Superintending Engineer/competent authority while invoking arbitration clause, therefore, the said claims have rightly been rejected. Moreover, there is an inordinate delay of five years in completion of the work, therefore, the impugned award could not have been passed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contractor would submit that the contract time was extended from time to time by the State and which has also been recorded by the learned tribunal and, therefore, the delay in completing the work cannot be attributed to the contractor. 4 (CR No. 54 of 2017 & CR No. 126 of 2017) 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. So far as the revision preferred by the State questioning award dated 21.02.2017 on the ground that there was a delay of five years in completing the work is concerned, in this regard, the learned tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that as per Ex.-P/2 to Ex.-P/16, the petitioner was allotted the work thereafter, drawing and designs were revised and amended frequently by the State authorities. Some residential quarters of Jail Department were also standing upon the site which were finally demolished, due to which the petitioner was not able to complete the work within the stipulated time period. As such, the learned tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that delay in completion of work cannot be attributed to the contractor alone and the finding recorded by the learned tribunal in this regard is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on the record and I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the learned tribunal that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the contractor in completing the work and it is the State authority who did not handover clear site to the petitioner- 5 (CR No. 54 of 2017 & CR No. 126 of 2017) contractor well in time. I hereby affirm the finding of the learned tribunal in this regard. 9. However, the claim of the contractor for payment of price escalation has been rejected by the learned tribunal on the ground that the petitioner did not claim the amount of Rs.2,04,346/- for short payment of escalation clause, while invoking the arbitration clause before the Superintending Engineer. Though, the learned counsel for the contractor would refer to claim dated 11.04.1997 (Ex.P/24) made by the contractor before the Superintending Engineer, but he could not demonstrate that he actually claimed an amount of Rs.2,04,346/- for the short payment of escalation clause. Similarly, the claim for interest on due amount from the date of filing of reference petition i.e. 14.07.1997 till the date of award i.e. 21.02.2017 has not been made specifically by the contractor in the reference petition. 10. In that view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned award dated 21.02.2017 passed by the learned tribunal and both the civil revisions filed by the State and the contractor deserve to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!