UNION OF INDIA Vs. EMJAY CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are challenging the award passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1996).

(2.) THE petition averments are as under:

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent/Arbitrator has wrongly decided that the Railway administration committed a default and in fact, the termination has been validly done, as the first respondent did not show adequate progress. He further submitted that the first respondent could not claim any compensation towards the idle labour, machinery, etc. as the conditions of the contract do not contemplate any claim over and excess of the contracted sum. He further submitted as per clause 51(3) of the General Conditions of contract (GCC), the Security Deposit would be refunded on successful completion of all the works done and after the completion of the maintenance period. Since the work has been terminated, the refund of Security Deposit is subject to the risk and cost. He further pointed out that as per clause 16(2) and 64(5) of the General Conditions of Contract, no interest is payable by the administration and in view of Sec.31(7)(a) of the Act 1996, the claim for interest was not at all sustainable. He further contended that the counter claims of the Railways were rejected without any basis and therefore, the award is to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007(5) C.T.C. 17 (Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions and another Vs THE Divisional Railway Manager-Works, Palghat Division, Southern Railway, Palghat, Kerala and others) and another judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) SCC 721 (Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa Vs N.C. Budharaj (Deceased) by L. Rs. and others).