AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of learned Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh making the award rule of the Court was dismissed.
The award passed by the learned Arbitrator was challenged by the Union of India on the ground that claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 raised by the contractor-respondent were not sustainable in view of the terms of the contract.
The reading of the order shows that the learned lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 awarded to the contractor were admissible under the terms of the agreement and it was not open to the Court to substitute its opinion so as to set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. No error can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below on this aspect.
The only challenge to be considered in this revision petition is qua the amount of Rs. 51,152/- awarded towards the reimbursement of damages suffered on account of breach of contract by the department including delay in issuing of Schedule B stores and delay in handing over site etc. which resulted in prolongation of contract period. The Arbitrator against this claim had awarded a sum of Rs. 61,152/-. The claim of Rs. 61,152/- under claim No. 6 for prolongation of the contract for non-supply of stores and delay in handing over the site cannot be sustained in view of the specific bar u/s 11(C) of the contract agreement. The impugned part of the award, therefore, is the outcome of the misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. Therefore, for the detailed reasons given in C.R. No. 3884 of 2001 A.K.M. Construction v. Commander Works Engineer, this revision petition is partly allowed and claim of Rs. 61,152/- awarded to the respondent-contractor by the Arbitrator for prolongation of the contract is hereby set aside while claim under other heads are upheld.
Revision petition is partly allowed.