PARAGON CONSTRUCTION Vs. D.K. SHARMA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of these objections is an award passed by the learned Arbitrator on 6th January 1997 awarding a sum of Rs. 10,13,185/ - to the claimant with 12% interest per annum on the amount awarded from the date of award till actual realization/ payment. Though the award passed by learned Arbitrator is a lumpsum award in which no reasons have been given by the Arbitrator but a perusal of record would show that the Arbitrator had first prepared a draft in which he had discussed all the claims and counter claims giving reasons and then passed a lumpsum award. Thus, the reasons can be deciphered from the record itself.

(2.) THE award is objected to by the respondent National Projects Construction Corporation Limited on the grounds that the appointment of the Arbitrator itself was illegal since the claimant had accepted the final bill without any demur and once the final bill was accepted, no further claim of the petitioner could be raised before the Arbitrator. The other ground is that the Arbitrator gave a non -speaking award and overlooked and ignored the evidence placed before him which had vital bearing on the matter in controversy and he did not deal with the claims made by the objector in answering to the claims of the petitioner. The other objection is that the award was contrary to the terms of contract. Most of the claims made by the claimant were beyond the terms of the contract. The respondent had provided to the learned Arbitrator a copy of measurement book (MB) duly endorsed by the claimant. The claimant had accepted the correctness of the measurements recorded therein and it was not open to the claimant to make any claim against respondent in relation to the work order in question beyond MB. It is further submitted that once the final bill had been accepted by the petitioner, nothing remained due to the petitioner from respondent and thus the arbitrator should have dismissed the claims. It is further submitted that the claims of the claimant were barred by time as per the terms of contract and the award was, therefore, without jurisdiction and had an error apparent on the face of it.

(3.) RESPONDENT also made following counter claims: