(1.) BY this petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and conciliation Act, the Petitioner has assailed an award dated 5th July, 2005 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had partly allowed the claims of the petitioner and partly disallowed the claims of the petitioner.
(2.) THE award has been challenged on the ground that Learned arbitral Tribunal failed to give reasons for denial of the claims. It is submitted that claim No. 1 was denied by the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground of improper planning and assumption, which shows lack of application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal. None of the parties had claimed that there was improper planning and assumption. The total work awarded was for Rs. 60,46,651/ -. There was no evidence that the work was reduced due to improper planning. It is also submitted that the Arbitrators were not experts who could have arrived at a conclusion about the planning in the matter of civil contracts.
(3.) THE other ground of challenging the award is that the arbitral Tribunal rejected some of the claims of the petitioner on the basis of measurement recorded in the measurement book (MB), while in fact the petitioner had done much more work than all the work shown in the MB. It is submitted that the original work awarded was more than of Rs. 60,00,000/ -. After the petitioner had left the work remaining work was awarded for a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- only to the subsequent contractor. If the petitioner had not done the work to the extent of Rs. 46,00,000/- the remaining work would not have been of rs. 14,00,000/ -. Thus, the Arbitral Tribunal should have taken this into consideration and should have reached the conclusion that the MB had not correctly recorded the work done. The petitioner also challenged awarding of Rs. 89,449/- by the Arbitral Tribunal to the respondent on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the applicant could not have removed any material from the site without prior permission of the authorities concerned.