EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. NAV NIRMAN CONSTRUCTION CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Order I shall dispose of objections filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against an award dated 19.4.2006 passed by the Arbitrator. By this award the learned Arbitrator had allowed following amounts in favour of the respondent:

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of considering this petition are that the respondent was awarded a contract of construction of inlet/outflow structure of 'DDA Storm Water drain ' at R.D.12940M(R/B) of Supplementary Drain. The respondent had given a bid for this work at Rs. 20,23,116/ -. The tender/bid of the respondent was accepted by petitioner vide letter dated 11.5.1992. The stipulated date of start of work was 18th May, 1992 and date of completion of work was 17th October, 1992 i.e. the work was to be completed within five months of opening of tender. However, the contractor had not completed the work within this period for several reasons and the time period was extended from time to time. The work was ultimately completed on 30th October, 1997 i.e. almost five years after the stipulated date of completion. The contractor 's submitted final bill after completion of work. The contractor raised a dispute after submission of final bill that he was entitled for additional payments and invoked arbitration Clause on 14th August, 2000. The petitioner did not appoint the Arbitrator and the respondent then moved an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and vide order dated 21st April, 2003 in AA No. 45/2003, the present Arbitrator was appointed and gave the aforesaid award which is under challenge.

(3.) IT is submitted that the Arbitrator gave award contrary to facts and law, without assigning any reasons and contrary to Clause 25 of the Contract which specifically provided that the Arbitrator was to give reasons. The Arbitrator allowed claims of the respondent merely on the presumptions and approximation and blindly accepted the claims of the respondent without any evidence in proof. The Arbitrator also did not consider that the respondent had entered several remarks in the site order book wrongfully and illegally to substantiate his assertions and claims. It is stated that the Arbitrator ignored and violated conditions of the contract/agreement and the award made by the Arbitrator in respect of different claims was beyond the scope of contract and the agreement. It is stated that the Arbitrator acted without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Arbitrator wrongfully allowed 12% interest.