AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of appellants. He submits, judgment dated 10th September,
2015 made by Court of District Judge, Sambalpur requires interference in appeal.
On query from Court he submits, his first ground of challenge against the award (since appeal is continuation of the challenge) is regarding claim
no.1. There was rate fixed for extra works not provided by the contract. The rates were fixed by 6th Supervisory Committee and 4th High Level
Technical Committee. The Committees cannot be said to have been contracting parties to have modified it.
Regarding claim no.2 Mr. Mohanty submits, there could not have been interest granted for retention of security money. No such provision was
there in the contract. Claim no.6 according to him is also not covered by four corners of contract. As such, this claim too could not have been
awarded in favour of respondent.
Mr. Dwibwdi, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent. He will be heard on adjourned date.
List on 23rd February, 2022.
...........................................