STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ELECHMECH ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE objections have been filed under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 19.5.2012 passed by the Arbitrator, Superintending Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Arbitration Circle, Solan. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of these objections are that the work of C/o. Minister/Administrative Block at Vidhan Sabha was awarded to the respondent -contractor against agreement No. 61 of 1997 -98 vide letter dated 17.9.1997. The work was to be completed within a period of 12 months. The work was to be completed upto 30.9.1998. However, the same was completed on 29.9.2001. He was also granted extension upto 30.9.2001 under clause 5 of the contract agreement No. 61 of 1997 -98. According to the contractor, final bill was required to be paid to him within six months after the completion of work and he was entitled to escalation under clause 10 -CC of the contract. He was also entitled to be paid for extra and substituted works in terms of clause 12(v) of the contract. A dispute arose between the parties and Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. Arbitrator entered into reference on 2.11.2005. Claim was filed by the contractor. Arbitrator passed an award on 19.5.2012. Hence, these objections.

(2.) MR . Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that award dated 19.5.2012 is against the well settled position of law. According to him, award is based on conjecture and surmises. He also contended that the award is against the public policy. He has further argued that the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding claim No. 3 as per clause 10 -CC. He lastly contended that interest at the rate of 7.5% pendente lite is also wrongly made in favour of the contractor.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.