KAMAL PRABHAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the objections filed by the Objector/Union of India/ against the award dated 1.2.1996 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Shri Gian Chard, Superintendent Engineer (SG) appointed by the objector/Union of India in terms of Clause 7 of the General Conditions of Contracts governing the parties. The facts of the case are encapsulated as below.

(2.) THE petitioner/contractor was awarded a contract for periodical services to certain buildings in the Delhi Cantonment Area for Rs. 1,26,780/- The said contract dated 28.7.1989 was to commence on 10.8 and was to be completed within a period months, by 9.2.1990. Counsel of objector/Union of India states that n were issued by the objector/Union of In the petitioner/contractor for completion work and improving the progress of the from time to time. However, as the petit contractor was not keeping progress work, his contract was cancelled vide dated 6.11.1989. The petitioner/cont thereafter made representations t objector/Union of India for reconsiders the cancellation of contract. Accordingly cancellation was revoked on 19.1.199 extension of time was granted t petitioner/contractor till 13.4.199 completing the contract. As the petit contractor again failed to complete the within the given time, the objector/Union of India cancelled the contract and g balance work executed at the risk and of the petitioner/contractor in terms contract. The cancellation of the co was done by the objector/Union of India order dated 19.9.1990. Subsequently disputes and differences arose between the parties which were referred by the objector Union of India to the learned Arbitration adjudication in terms of the arbitration governing the parties.

(3.) COUNSEL for the objector/Union of India has assailed the award on the ground that the amount awarded to the petitioner/ contractor is liable to be set aside as the same is not supported by any material on the record and that the learned Arbitrator has failed to furnish any reasons or calculations as to how he arrived at the figure of Rs. 31,878/- under claim No. 1. The interest amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator has also been disputed by the objector/Union of India on the ground that even this amount was not payable to the petitioner/contractor as the objector/ Union of India had raised counter claims against the petitioner/contractor for a larger amount, which were wrongly rejected by the learned Arbitrator. It is thus contended that the learned Arbitrator rendered the award without any basis.