BACKBONE TARMATNG Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present objection petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award dated 18th March, 2005.

(2.) MR. S. K. Chandwani, learned counsel for the petitioner-contractor submitted that the arbitral tribunal had erroneously disallowed petitioners claim for cost of reinforcement with regard to work executed against item Nos. 10. 14 and 11. 09 of the Bill of quantities (hereinafter referred to as "boq" ). He submitted that the said cost had not been specifically included in the said two items. The items 10. 14 and 11. 09 read as under :-

(3.) MR. Chandwani submitted that description of the items 10. 14 and 11. 09 did not specifically include the cost of reinforcement, unlike other items such as 6a. 21, 6b. 18 and 6b. 14 where it was specifically mentioned that the item was "inclusive of reinforcement" and/or technical Specifications Clause 1600 as referred to. Items 6a. 21, 6b. 18 and 6b. 14 of BOQ read as under :-