DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under sub-Section 2 of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to set aside the award dated 7.7.1999 of Shri B.R. Taneja, Sole Arbitrator.

(2.) The disputes arise out of the tender invited by the petitioner in February 1995 for providing and laying 450mm. dia. outfall sewer for certain Blocks in Ramesh Nagar, West Zone, New Delhi. The respondent No.1 was awarded the said contract. Disputes arose between the parties in the execution of the contract and in view of the Arbitration Clause existing in the Contract, the designated authority of the petitioner vide letter dated 8.10.1998, appointed Shri B.R. Taneja, as the Sole Arbitrator, who entered upon reference and made and published his award on 7.7.1999. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the objections of the petitioner fall within the parameters of a challenge to an Award as laid down by the Supreme Court in ONGC Vs. Saw Pipes AIR 2003 SC 2629. Learned counsel contends that the total amount of tendered work was Rs.12,07,334.26 and the Contractor completed work only for an amount of Rs.5,17,300/- and the balance work remained unexecuted and was abandoned by respondent No.1. Thus the amount awarded of Rs.12,81,442/- was astronomical and thus the award was patently illegal and perverse. The findings arrived at by the Arbitrator on perusal of the evidence was that the petitioner could not hand over the site to respondent No.1 well in time. The tenders were received in February 1995 but were finalised only in November 1995. The respondent No.1 waited for more than two years to carry out the work at the quoted rates. The petitioner initially rescinded the Contract on 12.7.1996 and after some days granted extension of time. There was thus an abnormal delay with the result that respondent No.1 could not be compelled to work on the same rates beyond the stipulated date. These aspects have been considered to only show that the findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator are against the petitioner and the fault is attributed to the petitioner.