ANANT RAJ AGENCIES Vs. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "act, 1940") raising objections to the Award dated 3rd September, 1995 made and published by Mr. K. D. Bali, Sole Arbitrator. By way of this petition, objector-respondent-DDA has challenged the said arbitrators Award to the extent it awards Claims No. 2 to 6, 8 to 13 and 16.

(2.) MR. Ajay Verma, learned counsel for respondent-DDA stated that the Arbitrator had erroneously awarded Rs. 13,41,591. 66 under Claim No. 2 on account of infructuous expenditure. He submitted that the said Award was in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to Clause No. 1 of additional specifications read with clauses 5, 10, 10cc of General Conditions of Contract. The said clauses are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-

(3.) MR. Verma stated that in view of aforesaid Clause No. 5, the provisions of the contract applied even to the extended period. He submitted that learned Arbitrator had erroneously held that clause No. 1 of additional specifications did not apply to work executed beyond the stipulated period of completion. Mr. Verma stated that compensation on account of delay due to non-supply of stipulated material and/or non-availability of site was totally prohibited. In this connection, Mr. Verma relied upon Ishwar Singh and Sons Vs. D. D. A. reported in 1994 II AD (Delhi) 477 wherein it was held as under :