LAWS(DLH)-1996-7-110

ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Decided On July 16, 1996
ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINIRING PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
V/S
CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the arbitrator to file his award and to make the award a Rule of the Court. In the petition the petitioner further seeks for a direction to grant interest on the awarded amount to the petitioner from the date the award is made a Rule of the Court at 21 % per annum with quarterly rests and for costs.

(2.) The petitioner entered into a contract with respondent No.1 for construction of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy at Fursatgang, Rae Bareli, U.P. During the execution of the contract certain disputes and differences arose between the parties with regard to the claims of the petitioner company arising out of and in relation to the said contract. The petitioner, therefore, requested the respondent'No. 1 to refer the said differences and disputes to the arbitration in terms of clause 25 of the arbitration agreement entered into between me parties, subsequent to which the respondent No.l appointed Shri S.C.Gupta, Chief Engineer (Engineering Cell), Border Security Force (BSF) as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the parties and to make the award.

(3.) The arbitrator entered into reference and made his award on 29.12.1990 accepting the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.2,1-3,852.64 being the amount recovered from the bills of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 sought to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,13,852.64 from the bills of the petitioner on the ground that the cost of earth was not arranged and supplied by the claimants. The contention of the petitioner on the other hand was that the aforesaid payment was towards cost of earth filling made by the petitioner in executing the aforesaid contract and the same was also measured by the respondent No. 1 and paid for in all the running bills and final bill of the petitioner for item No.22 of the agreement.