MANGAL SAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award has been made by the arbitrator, Mr. R.K.Sarkar, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) D.W. Northern Railway on 6.8.1993. The respondent - UOI has filed objections to the award.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent - UOI Mr. Bhatia, has contended that the award has to be set-aside in view of the grant of claim Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Bhatia has contended that the award on these claims are outside the terms and conditions of the contract and arbitrator has acted without jurisdiction. He has also contended that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings by awarding this amount.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-petitioner has contended that claim No. 2 was for expenses incurred for clearing the site and on account of no work executed apart from this head, claim No. 2 was for whatever work executed and no payment made also. The arbitrator on this head awarded a sum of Rs. 9750/= out of total claim of Rs. 25,000/=. Mr. Sharma has contended that arbitrator after taking into account as to actual work executed at the site and no payment was made by the respondent has awarded only Rs. 9750/=. Learned counsel for the claimant-petitioner has taken me to the claims filed before the arbitrator in which on account of work executed but no payment made, a sum of Rs.9750/= has been awarded by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has declined other claims and granted a sum of Rs. 9750/= only. In reply to the said claim, it was not disputed by the respondent before the arbitrator that this amount was not spent by the claimant-petitioner. In view of the specific reply filed by the respondent, I do not see any infirmity in the award of the arbitrator in relation to claim No. 2.