UNION OF INDIA Vs. OM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision the limited challenge on behalf of the petitioners is to awarding of a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of damages suffered due to prolongation of contract period. The facts on which this contention has been emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioners is that one M/s. Om Construction Company which is respondent in this petition was awarded a contract for the provision of OIM ACCN for the station workshop Jotogh for a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,27,603. 64. The work was required to be completed within 15 months. The date of completion is stated to have been extended finally upto to 8. 6. 1987. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the respondent Company invoked the arbitration clause of the, agreement and made a request for reference of its dispute to the Arbitrator. In all 11 claims were raised by the petitioner which were referred in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement to the Arbitrator appointed by the petitioner. The Arbitrator Col. A. K. S. Bawa presented and published his award dated 23. 5. 1992. This award was submitted to the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh for being made rule of the Court and drawing the decree m terms thereof. This award which came to be exhibited as Ex. OW l/a was made rule of the Court and the objections filed by the Union of India were dismissed. The Court also awarded future interest on the total sum awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation. This judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 10. 3. 1995 was assailed in appeal before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The appeal was dismissed consequently upholding the amounts that had been awarded by the Arbitrator under different claims to the petitioners.

(2.) IT is this order of the District Judge, Chandigarh dated 23. 12. 1995 which has been assailed in the present revision petition.

(3.) TO appreciate this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it will be relevant at the very outset to refer to condition No. 11-C of the contract between the parties, which reads as under "11-C. No claim in respect of compensation or otherwise, howsoever arising, as a result of extensions granted under Conditions (A) and (B) above shall be admitted. " Thus, it is clear from an admitted contract between the parties that condition No. 11c would govern and bind the parties at all stages. It is a settled rule of law that an Arbitrator and for that matter even courts cannot substitute an agreement between the parties. The contract is one which is agreed and entered upon between the parties voluntarily and by which they opt to be bound.