RITES is personally liable as the employer and cannot shift the liability to TMC, Chintamani. The award is not in conflict with public policy of India.

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant, respondents 1 and 2 were respectively petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in Arbitration Case No. 42 of 1998, on the file of city Civil Court, Bangalore. For convenience the appellant will also be referred to as the 'employer' or 'rites'; the first respondent will also be referred to as the Contractor; and the second respondent will also be referred to as the Arbitrator.

( 2 ) RITES invited tenders by tender notice dated 1-12-1993 for construction of "daily market building (civil works)" at Chintamani. The contractor submitted its tender. The employer (RITES) accepted the said tender and awarded the work to the Contractor, as per letter of acceptance dated 14-2-1994. In that behalf, an agreement dated 18-3-1994 was entered into between RITES and the Contractor for the execution of said work the contract value being Rs. 1,03,18,371. 00. The tender notice, letter of acceptance and the agreement made it clear that RITES was acting on behalf of the Town Municipal Council (TMC), Chintamani. As per the contract, the contractor had to execute the work within 15 months from the date of letter of acceptance, that is on or before 14-5-1995. In consideration of execution and completion of the work, RITES agreed to pay to the Contractor the respective rates contained in the bill f quantities, with such other sums as may become payable to the Contractor under the contract. The agreement also provided that the tender notice, letter of acceptance, general conditions of contract, special conditions of contract, technical specification and drawings, correction slips 1 and 2, schedules and the letters exchanged between RITES and the contractor between the date of tender and the contract, shall form part of the contract. Clause 65 of the General Conditions of Contract refers to settlement of disputes. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 65 provides for settle-ment of disputes by arbitration.

( 3 ) THE Contractor claims that in terms of the contract, it mobilized the men, machinery and material to execute the work in right earnest, but the work could not be completed within the stipulated period or thereafter due to the following, amongst other breaches on the part of RITES: (a) trespassing by local market vendors, preventing execution of the work and consequential failure by RITES to make available uninter- rupted possession of work site; (b) delay in cutting and removing the trees which existed in the work site; (c) delay in delivering the posses sion of the portion of site meant for 'e' block on account of existence of petty shops; (d) delay in removing the sanitary main pipelines crisscrossing under the work site and high tension power line" running across above the work site, till September 1994; (e) failure to provide access for | trucks of the Contractors to the work site by removing the encroachers on the approach road; (f) delay in giving designs and drawings for the roof beams of 'g' and 'h' Blocks till September 1994 and for giving roof slab re-enforcement details for casting slab concrete of 'f, 'g' and 'h' blocks till December 1994; (g) failure to give detailed drawing for 'j' block even till the end of stipulated period for completion of the contract; (h) delay on account of change of design in respect of Blocks 'a', 'b', 'g' and 'j' by increasing the height; (i) failure to pay mobilization advance in terms of Clause 58 (5) of the General Conditions of Contract; (j) inordinate delay, ranging from 3 months to one year, in making interim payments for the work done in accordance with Clause 58 (3) of the General conditions of Contract, resulting in arrears of Rs. 38,85,390. 01 becoming due in respect of RA Bill Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and Price Adjustment Bill nos. 1 to 5 and Bill for Extra Items; (k) failure to settle the equitable and mutually agreed rates for extra work and variations in quantities of items beyond the stipulated limit. The Contractor alleged that on account of said breaches and failure to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document