SANYUKT NIRMATA Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.-

(2.) BY means of an agreement No. 277 of 1981-82, the Indian Institute of Technology, respondent No. 1, awarded to M/s Sanyukt Nirmata, petitioner, the work for the construction of extension of blocks VII, V1I1, X, XI and XIV at I.I.T. Delhi for the value of Rs. 30,37,580.00. In pursuance to the acceptance on October 29, 1981 of the tenders submitted by petitioner. Under the agreement the work was to be completed on or before May 7, 1983 but the same wagot extended for another period of five months and the work was to be completed by October 27, 1983. The work was completed on October 7, 1983. The disputes between the parties arose as to the payments to be made to petitioner. The agreement contained arbitration clause 25. These disputes were referred to respondent No. 2 who is a retired Chief Engineer. Respondent No. 2 made and published his award on December 15, 1984.

(3.) THE first point for determination is whether the arbitrator has exceeded the terms of reference and has acted beyond his jurisdiction in awarded the aforesaid amount. In the original award, the arbitrator had clearly found that responsibility for delay rests with the respondent No. 1. He gave clear findings in the first award that there was unreasonable delay on the part of respondent No. 1 in completing the contract and that arbitrator would have given compensation to the Contractor but for its interpretation of letter dated October 19, 1981. It means that arbitrator accepted the proposition that under law, petitioner was entitled to compensation for delay in execution. In his judgment S. Ranganathan, J. clearly held that there was no substance in the contention urged on behalf of respondent that claim of the petitioner was unfounded in view of the claim made under Section 10 (c). THE award was remitted to respondent No. 2 for quantifying the amount of compensation. THE arbitrator in his supplementary award has laid emphasis on the fact that delay was caused on account of fault on the part of respondent No. 1 and he held that there bad been failure on the part of IIT to give complete possession of the working site within a reasonable time which was suffering from obstructions, supply of complete working drawings at the time of commencement of work, shortage of cement during execution as brought out by the departmental officers, to supply complete structural drawings in time, even some of the footing details were wanting and occupations of one of the incomplete blocks by the Institute as a cement store preventing the contractors to complete work in all respects. According to the award, these factors were responsible in preventing the petitioner from executing the work uninterruptedly and to complete the same within the stipulated period. Arbitrator was acting well within the scope of reference when he says that officers of the respondent were negligent, with regard to the execution of contract in question and this was a major fact of the claim by the petitioner as a result of delay and as such IIT has to pay damages for such defaults. In my view arbitrator has not exceeded the terms of reference.