Puri and Others vs Indian Institute of Technology

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—These objections have been filed by the petitioner M/s Puri & Co. against the award dated 18.5.1994 of the arbitrator. The award pertained to the disputes between the parties which arose on the petitioner being awarded the additional work of construction of AIU Building, above the 4th Floor Level in the building portion including water supply and sanitary installation. The disputes which arose between the parties because of the arbitration clause were referred to the arbitration of Sh. V.R. Vaish sole arbitrator who has passed the award which is being challenged by the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award with respect to claim Nos. 1, 4 and 7.

The objections with regard to claim No. 1 pertains to the objection that according to the petitioner, a rebate of 2% on the contract price was not available in the subject agreement (which is a second agreement) since the rebate of 2% in the overall price was given only for the first contract if the offer of the objector was accepted in time. The issue, therefore, before the arbitrator was whether with respect to the subject contract, the respondent/Indian Institute of Technology was entitled to a rebate of 2% on the overall price of the contract. The arbitrator has in this regard specifically referred to the letter of award issued with respect to the subject contract on 18.01.2004 which contained clause No. 2 which ran as under:

The agreement amount of Rs. 9,29,148 is inclusive of 3.5% rebate as per the present agreement No. 303 of 1982-83 and give an enhancement of 8% as per your offer dated 25.11.83.

In view of the above clause, the arbitrator has given a clear cut finding that since in the letter of award itself there was a mention of the rebate of 3.5% which included the rebate of 2% towards overall price and the petitioner/contractor had never objected to this letter of award and in fact acted upon the contract on that basis there does not arise any question of rebate not being available in the second contract. There is no perversity in this finding of the arbitrator as it is a reasonable finding based on the letter of the award itself which makes a provision for this rebate. This objection is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,500/-.

The second objection which is raised by the objector pertains to claims on account of delays caused by the respondent/non objector. The claims in this behalf are claim No. 4 for increase in the rates of material and wages and claim No. 7 with respect to the establishment and overhead expenses. While discussing these claims No. 4 and 7, the arbitrator has given a finding of fact that delays were caused both by the petitioner as also by the respondent. Consequently, in sum and substance, the arbitrator considering the delays on the part of the objector also, awarded finally a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards both these claims instead of Rs. 2,55,400/- claimed by the objector. The arbitrator is a master of facts and finding of facts so arrived at by the arbitrator cannot be challenged by the objector. In fact, nothing has been pointed to this Court as to why the finding of fact that both the petitioner and the respondent were responsible for the delay is incorrect. Accordingly, there is no merit in these objections with respect to claims No. 4 and 7 also which are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2500/-. The award is therefore made a rule of the court and the objections are dismissed.

Accordingly, the objection petition being I.A No. 2133/96 is dismissed with total costs of Rs. 5000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent within a period of one month from today failing which simple interest on such cost will be paid @ 12% per annum till actual payment.