1 2026:CGHC:4339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 19 of 2017  M/s Shraddha Construction Co. A Partnership Firm Duly Registered With The Registrar Of Firms And Societies Having Its Office At Station Road, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, And Represented Through Its Partner Mr. Satish Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Late Shri S.R.Agrawal, R/o R-7, S B I Officers Colony, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Grameen Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, Project Implementation Unit-2, P M G S Y, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Mishra, Advocate For State/Non-Applicants : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government Advocate along with Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.01 .2026 1. The facts in brief are that the petitioner entered into an agreement for construction of 9 roads and accepted the cost of construction Rs. 59599263/-. The scheduled period for completion of work was 12 months including rainy season. The applicant could not conclude the work, therefore, the contract was terminated vide order dated 14.01.2009. The applicant herein made a reference under Section 7-A of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “Adhiniyam, 1983”) claiming therein difference of cost of work quoted and paid by the respondents, variation in measurement and less payment on the basis of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.31 14:49:48 +0530 2 such measurement and additional cost of hume pipes, return of performance guarantee, security deposit amount retained by respondents with future interest. 2. The applicant herein claimed following claims before by filing reference petition under Section 7-A of Adhiniyam, 1983 :- “Claim No. 1 - The Claimant has executed the work costing to Rs. 772,20,968.00 against which payment of Rs. 697,80,375.00 has been made by the Respondents and payment of Rs. 74,40,593.00 has not been made. The Claimant claims this amount of Rs. 74,40,593.00 from the Respondents and prays that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 74,40,593.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents. Claim No. 2 - The Claimant has executed the work as per directions and approvals of the Respondents. The rate for C/C road was quoted by the Claimant firm @ Rs. 6,000.00/Sq.M. and the quantity executed at site as per records of the Respondents is 5170.80 Sq.M. The Respondents have converted the unit of executed work from contractual square meter to cubic meter and the executed quantity thus so certified is 775.62 Cu.M. and the payment is made also made for this reduced quantity @ Rs. 6000.00/Cu.M. thus the under payment is made for 5170.80-775.62 4395.18 Sq.M. @ Rs. 6000.00/Sq.M. which figures out to Rs. 263,71,080.00 which the Claimant claims from the Respondents and humbly prays that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 263,71,080.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents. Claim No. 3 - The Claimant firm has executed the work of construction of embankment with borrowed soil to the tune of 1,40,000.00 cubic meter but the Respondents have made payment for 1,12,000.00 cubic meter only and thereby the Claimant is under paid by 28,000.00 Cu.M. @ Rs. 132.00/Cu.M. Rs. 36,96,000.00. As such the Claimant respectfully claims this sum of Rs. 36,96,000.00 form the Claimant and humbly prays that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 36,96,000.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents. Claim No. 4 - The Claimant firm has executed the work of laying of 500 mm dia hume pipe 413.00 R.M. as recorded by the Respondents in their measurement books and the payment of such item has been made by them at the rate quoted by the Claimant in the contract agreement. The item given in the contract does not include the cost of such hume pipes which the Claimant claims @ Rs. 3 1,000.00/R.M. which figures out to Rs. 4,13,000.00. It is humbly prayed that the H'ble Arbitration Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 4,13,000.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondent. Claim No. 5 - The Claimant has executed the items of laying of home pipe of 500 m.m. dia amount of Rs. 29,80,000.00 being performance guarantee in shape of bank guarantee at the time of execution of contract agreement. Since the work of Claimant has been completed, hence this amount has become due for refund, which the Claimant claims from the Respondents. It is prayed that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 29,80,000.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents. Claim No. 6 - The Respondents have retained an amount of Rs. 22,70,317.00 from the bills of the Claimant firm in the name of security deposit. Since the contract has been illegally rescind by the Respondents and the Claimant did pot remain under obligation to maintain the created utility so the amount of security has become due for refund to the Claimant which they claim from the Respondents. It is humbly prayed that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 22,70,317.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents. Claim No. 7 - The Respondents have retained an amount of Rs. 33,43,218.00 from the bills of the Claimant firm without assigning any reason, without issue of any order of competent authority pursuant to process of adjudication. Since the Respondents have illegally rescind the contract so no further order of any kind of penalty can be issued by them as this juncture and thus the amount so retained has become due for refund to the Claimant which they claim from the Respondents. It is humbly prayed that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 33,43,218.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents. Claim No. 8 - The total of above four claims figures out to Rs. 465,48,208.00 which is due for payment since Dec.2009 when the quantified claim was raised before the designated authority of the contract. Thus the Claimant claims interest w.e.f. 01/01/2010 @ 16% p.a. which figures out to Rs. 43,44,499.00 on the Respondents. It is humbly prayed that the H'ble Arbitral Tribunal may very kindly be pleased to award this sum of Rs. 43,41,326.00 in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents, with future interest till the date of payment actually realised to the Claimant.” 3. The non-applicants filed reply, thereafter, the learned Tribunal after due appreciation of documentary evidence dismissed the reference petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would argue that the learned 4 Tribunal failed to consider and discuss the separate claims made by the applicant and dismissed the reference petition in cryptic manner. He would pray to allow this revision. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. G.A. would submit that though specific finding has not been given on each claim made by the applicant herein, but all have been discussed thoroughly by the learned Tribunal thereafter decision has been taken. She would submit that this revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate each claim of the applicant and findings have not been recorded with respect to different claims made by the applicant. In a cryptic way, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the reference petition of the applicant. 8. Taking into consideration the above lacuna in the award, the award dated 10.11.2016 is hereby set-aside and matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to decide it afresh. The learned Tribunal shall consider each claim of the claimant based on the material placed on the record after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. As the reference was made by the applicant in the year 2007, the learned Tribunal shall make all endeavuors to conclude the proceeding preferably within a period of 6 months. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant revision is hereby disposed of. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 10th March, 2026. 5 12. Record be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant