(1.) By judgment dated July 27, 1990 passed in Suit No.2346/97 & I.A. 1675/88 and Suit No.287-A/88 this Court had set aside the award dated 12th October, 1987 passed by the Arbitrator in so far as the same related to additional items (c) to (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of Claim No.2 as well as Claim No.6 and remitted the same to the Arbitrator for reconsideration and to make an award in respect thereof with reasons within four months. This portion of the award was set aside on the ground that no reasons whatsoever had been given by the Arbitrator on the said claims. The Arbitrator has now given reasons in respect of additional items (c) to (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of Claim No.2 and Claim No.6. After the said reasons were filed in Court, the respondent has once again filed objections to the Award which have been registered as I.A.No. 9601 of 1991. There was some delay in filing the objections and the Court, therefore, framed the following issues : 1. Do 2. If Issue No.1 is found in favour of the respondents is the award dated 13.2.1991 liable to be set aside on the grounds taken in the objection petition being I.A.No. 9601/91? 3. Relief. By order dated August 19, 1996 the Court condoned the delay in filing the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and presently Issues 2 and 3 remain to be decided by this Court.
(2.) The respondent has not objected to the award in respect of Claim No.2(g). With a view to appreciate the objections of the respondent it will be proper to deal with each item of the claim. Item No.(c)
(3.) This claim related to the award for extra item for plastering external walls of height beyond 10 metres. The Arbitrator while deciding this claim has held that in terms of CPWD Specification 1977 Vol. I page 327 external plastering at height of over 10 metres is to be measured separately. For this extra plastering at a height of over 10 metres the contractor is entitled to an extra rate of Rs. 1.28 per sq. mtr. in terms of the Delhi Schedule of Rates, 1974 Item 66 page 127 including enhancement under Clause 12. The Arbitrator, therefore, held that as the quantity of work above the height of 10 metre was 12260 sq.m. as reported by the Executive Engineer the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,693.00