BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SKY BUILDER CONTRACTOR, GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent.

(2.) By means of this appeal, judgment and order dated 21.1.2017 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 621/2015 (Bulandshahr Development Authority Vs. M/s Sky Builder Contractor) has been challenged, whereby the objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected.

(3.) While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent was ineligible to enter into the contract as in terms of the advertisement only class (A), the contractor could enter into the agreement. He also submits that the respondent neither started the work on the date scheduled to start the work nor completed the same within time. In his submissions, the work was to start with effect from 1.9.1997 and it was to be completed upto 1st June, 1998. In his further submissions, the respondent started work with effect from 27.3.1998 and stopped the same on 1st June, 1998, therefore the arbitrator has erred in awarding the huge amount to be paid to the respondent including the loss of profit on the balance work, interest on billed and unbilled work, interest on loss of profit and some amount for harassment and legal expenses. In his further submissions, the term of the contract had expired as per the agreement on 1st June, 1998 and this aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the arbitrator.