JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :— This is an application for making the award dated 17th Feb. 1986 passed by Mr. V. Khalid,- a former Judge of this Court, in a dispute referred to him by this Courts order dated 6th Oct. 1987, final and to give consequential directions thereupon.

2. On 7th April, 1979 there was a contract for construction of the building in question. The contract consisted of two phases. The date of commencement of both the phases was 10th March, 1979; the date of completion of phase-I was 9th June, 1980 and for phase II 9th Nov. 1980. The dispute arose about the handing over of the site. According to the appellant, the site was not handed over to him as agreed upon and therefore, the work could not either be commenced or completed as stipulated. He, therefore, accused the respondent of obstructionist tactics also. According to the respondent, however, the claims put forward by the appellant were imaginary excuses to gain time and that he put forward various demands for extension of time and for payment of compensation to which he was not entitled.

3. Clause 70 of the general conditions of the contract provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The appellant resorted to this clause and addressed a letter dated 13th Sept. 1980 to the Chief Engineer, South West Zone, Cochin, informing him that if the said disputes were not settled to his satisfaction within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, he would be taking appropriate steps to refer the disputes to arbitration in accordance with the said clause. This request of the appellant was turned down by the Chief Engineer, as according to him, work was in progress and the question of granting reasonable extension of time was under examination. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant took the matter to the Engineer-in-Chief by his letter dated 14th Oct. 1980 calling upon him to appoint an Engineer Officer as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. This request was not acceded to. The relationship between the parties became strained.

4. The respondent asserted that the appellant had abandoned the work and committed breach of contract. Thereafter, the appellant vide a notice dated 4th Oct. 1982 called upon the Engineer-in-Chief to appoint an Engineer Officer as the sole arbitrator. After further correspondence, the Engineer-in-Chief by his letter dated 9-6-1983 appointed one Mr. K.C.S. Rao, Chief Engineer, Poona Zone, as the arbitrator in respect of the disputes. Mr. Rao, it is asserted, entered into reference. The appellant asserted that Mr. Rao was incompetent to function as arbitrator for it was he who had terminated the contract when he was officiating as the Chief Engineer of South West Zone.

5. Aggrieved by this appointment, he filed a suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Cochin, seeking leave to revoke the authority of the appointed arbitrator under S. 5 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act and for appointment of another person as arbitrator under S. 12 of the Act. It is not necessary to set out the various stages of litigation thereafter. Ultimately, the matter came to this Court and by an order passed by this Court on 25th Aug. 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 2632/87, it was observed as follows :

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that all the disputes mentioned in the Paper Book be arbitrated by a former retired Judge of this Court. We accordingly appoint Mr. Justice V. Khalid (Retd.) a former Judge of this Court, as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator will decide his remuneration as he thinks fit and the parties will pay the same in equal shares. The parties will also bear the costs And charges of holding the proceedings including the remuneration and other assistance of stenographers etc. Counsel for both the parties have no objection to the aforesaid order. The learned Arbitrator will enter into reference within a fortnight from the receipt of the cop