UNION OF INDIA Vs. PANDIT CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing.

(2.) THIS appeal challenges the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13th august 1996 by which the Claims No. 1, 4 and 16 in respect of which Union of india, the appellant herein, had filed the objections were rejected by the learned Single Judge. In respect of the Claim No. 1 findings recorded by the arbitrator are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Single Judge held that the appellant did not particularize the objections as to how the Arbitrator has gone wrong in the above findings. In view of that, the learned Single Judge dismissed the objection and in our view, rightly, as general pleas as to whether the award is wrong obviously cannot form the basis of setting aside the Arbitrator's award. In respect of Claim no. 4 as against the sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- claimed by the respondent, the arbitrator granted a sum of Rs. 45,000/ -. The claim of the appellant was that there was no unlawful or unauthorized deduction and whatever deductions were, the same were in accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract. It was contended that the Arbitrator had mis-conducted himself in granting the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 45,000/ -. The Arbitrator's findings in respect of the said claim No. 4 is as follows: "on perusal of documents filed and arguments advanced by parties, I find that no notice under clause 14 has been placed on record by respondents. The completing certificate by E. E. has not been filed only it is pleaded that these defects were included in the said completion certificate. No such defects are mentioned in R-42 which is completion certificate signed S. E. No joint measurements for any defects are on record. On perusal of R-109, R-10 and annex. C-4. A, I find that of one item quantity paid in 13th RA bill has been reduced in final bill. For some of the items reduction has been applied on entire quantity. R-44 relied by respondents is for seeking consent but no such consent was given by claimants. No loss was suffered by not removed and items are in use. Moreover items in R-44 are not supported by any notice under cl. 14 or any defects in completing certificate. Thus strictly speaking respondents were not entitled to make any reduction. However, considering the nature of defects and taking on overall view of the matter I hold that claimants are entitled for refund of at least rs. 45,000/ -. "