UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S. CHADHACOMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the award pronounced by the learned Arbitrator, whereunder, he proceeded to allow some of the claims reared before him, by the respondent herein, and, as also declined some claims reared before him, by the respondent. However, the respondent is not aggrieved, in the learned Arbitrator, declining some of the claims reared before him, by it.

(2.) The respondent was awarded contract, for providing, laying and compaction of 75 mm thick dense Bituminous Macadam, and, 40 mm thick asphalt concrete as per most specification including surface cleaning, and, providing of tack coat for above layers between KM 700 to KM 83.00 on Manali-Sarchu road in 38 BRTF Sector under Project Deepak-CA CE(P)DPK/13/06-07. The time of commencement of awarded work, was, prescribed therein to begin, from 108.2006, and, the prescribed time for completion of the awarded works, was, to end on 11th Dec., 2006, (a) and, the petitioner contends that the respondent/contractor failed to commence the work till 21.08.2007, (b) rather he commenced work on 208.2007, (c) and, during the year 2007, the respondent, was, able to complete only 40.42% awarded works, amounting to Rs. 1,68, 98,8210 paisa. The petitioner also contends that the respondent/contractor again failed to commence awarded works till 3.7.2008. The in-diligence of the respondent to hence complete the awarded works, is, espoused, to, remain alive, despite various reminders or notices being served, upon, the respondent/contractor. Ultimately, the petitioner was constrained to cancel the apt awarded works.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner, has contended with vigour before this Court, (i) that with time being the essence of the contract, and, with palpable omission(s), and, with personified indiligence, and, tardiness, of, pace of execution of awarded works, by respondent/contractor, (ii) when hence validly constrained, the petitioner, to cancel the awarded works, (iii) thereupon, it was unbefitting, for, the learned Arbitrator to rather allow, a, part of the contractor's claim, and, his aforesaid misdemeanors, has rather rendered the award to militate against public policy, and, also the impugned award, is, hence ingrained with the vice of fraud, thereupon, he contends that the award, is, amenable for reversal by this Court.