PRAKASH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Arbitrator Mr. V. Nainani filed in Court this award made and published by him on 26th September, 1991 in the disputes between the parties referred to him under agreement No. 55/EE/PWD-19/DA/ 88-89 relating to the work of construction of 100 bedded hospital in Khichripur, Delhi. Notice of filing of award was given to the parties and objections to the same have been filed by the respondent-Union of India.

(2.) IN its objections petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, it has been alleged that the award passed by the Arbitrator is arbitrary, illegal and against facts and law and was beyond the scope of reference. It is alleged that the Arbitrator misconducted himself by saying that the Union of INdia had not reserved its right to claim damages for delay in the completion of the work and the work had not been taken up at the risk and cost of the contractor till the date of the award and as such, according to the Arbitrator, the risk action failed. It is also alleged in the objection petition that the Arbitrator has wrongly decided claim No. 2 stating that the respondent impliedly accepted the performance of the claimant beyond the stipulated date of completion and, according to the Objector, arbitrarily awarded 75 per cent of the escalation beyond the stipulated period of contract. This finding of the Arbitrator, according to the Objector, is beyond the terms of reference and beyond his jurisdiction. The award on future interest and the cost of escalation have also been challenged by the Objector. Reply to the objections had been filed and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the objections filed by the respondent? 2. Relief. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) I, therefore, set aside the findings of the arbitrator mentioned above and separate it from the other part of the award and make the award, as far as claim Nos.1 to 4 are concerned, a rule of Court. The modified award is, accordingly, made a rule of Court and a decree in terms of the modified award is passed. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment.