(1.) THIS petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the Union of India challenging the award made on 11. 07. 2002. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India focused on claim Nos 2 and 4 which were allowed by the learned arbitrator to a certain extent in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner also dwelt upon claim No. 11 which pertains to escalation of wages.
(2.) CLAIM No. 2 pertains to the payment for RCC concrete M-20 in lieu of RCC M-15 as per the site order No. 4 dated 17. 08. 1998. The amount of the claim made by the respondent was Rs. 4,46,233. 91. As against this, the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,23,373/- in favour of the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the award of this amount has been made contrary to the terms of the contract. He submitted that the respondent knew all along that the concrete that was to be used was of M-20 mix as provided in the drawings and, therefore, he cannot claim any extra amount on being directed to use RCC M-20 for construction in respect of item Nos 1 and 2 of Schedule A of the contract. The Arbitrator considered clause 4. 4. 2 (a) of the particular specifications (Section II ). The said clause reads as under:
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Arbitrator misinterpreted and misconstrued the expression "not specifically mentioned elsewhere" as appearing in the aforesaid clause. According to him, the drawings clearly specified that RCC M-20 was to be utilised for the entire work and not M-15. He submitted that since it was specifically mentioned in the drawings, the above clause ought to have been interpreted to mean that the respondent / contractor was to use RCC M-20 and not RCC M-15. Therefore, he submitted that the contractor / respondent could not be awarded any extra amount in respect of carrying out the constructions using rcc M-20 in place of RCC M015 as per the work order No. 4 dated 17. 08. 1998.