VIJAY KUMAR GOEL Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') is to an Award dated 7th May 2004 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.2 herein) in the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 Delhi Jal Board ('DJB') arising out of an award by the DJB in favour of the Petitioner of the work of providing and laying new sewer line in place of existing sewer line in Sectors IX and XIII, Rohini Blocks - D, E, F, G and H by a letter dated 12th February 1998.

(2.) THE scheduled date of the commencement of the work was 15th March 1998. It was to be completed within a period of 10 months ending on 14th January 1999. According to the Petitioner, the contract period expired on 14th January 1999 without the Petitioner even being allowed to commence the work as the DJB failed to make available the required site, drawings and designs and even the stipulated material. It is stated that on 8th January 1999, the DJB on its own granted provisional extension of time ('EoT') for completion of the work up to 30th April 1999 without prejudice to the right of the DJB to levy liquidated damages ('LD'). The Petitioner states that by a letter dated 19th January 1999 it wrote to the DJB making it clear that since the DJB had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract and the original contract period had also expired, the Petitioner was not interested in the EoT and its accounts may be finalized. It is stated that without reference to this letter, the DJB again wrote to the Petitioner on 19th March 1999 stating that the time had been extended up to 30th April 1999. By a further letter dated 23rd April 1999, the DJB on its own granted another EoT up to 30th June 1999. By a further letter dated 17th June 1999, the fourth EoT was granted up to 31st October 1999.

(3.) THE disputes between the parties were referred to the sole Arbitrator who gave the impugned Award dated 7th May 2004. However, the impugned Award makes no reference to the application by the Petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. The Petitioner also filed OMP No. 19 of 2003 challenging the appointment of Respondent No.2 as sole Arbitrator which was later dismissed as withdrawn since the impugned Award had been passed by then.