1. The Petitioner, who is the original respondent has challenged, by petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The arbitration Act) reasoned award dated 5th March, 2010 passed by the learned sole arbitrator.

2. The Petitioner awarded to the Respondent (the claimant) the work of Project Management and Construction of pipeline network for domestic supply of natural gas in the area of Santacruz by work order dated 12th October, 2002. It was for three years from the date of letter of acceptance. The value of the work was Rs.3,87,07,260.00. The Respondent accordingly mobilised requisite resources and invested huge amount. The Petitioner was responsible to provide gas connection to the individuals of area. The Respondent was required to enter into agreement with the customers. The Petitioner failed and neglected to provide gas to the customers though the pipeline work was completed by the Respondent. The delay in supply of gas was for about 18 months, resulted in non-payment by the customers and consequent non-payment for the work done to the Respondent by the Petitioner. The Respondent, therefore, suffered heavy financial losses because of breach of the terms of the contract. For various reasons including default on the part of the Petitioner, the full work could not completed in stipulated period, because of change of specifications from time to time by the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of arbitration clause, the Respondent raised claims. The Petitioner also filed counter claims. The reply and the rejoinders were filed. One witness each was examined. The learned arbitrator heard the matter, accordingly, from time to time and not granted all the respective claims except challenged in the petition.

3. On 7th August, 2008, so far as counter claim No.18 is concerned, both the parties agreed and decided to arrive at agreed figure of the balance amount payable to the claimant on account of work done (Claim No.1) and the amount payable from the claimant to the Respondent on account of Material Reconciliation Recoveries. On 5th January 2009, both the parties, under authorisation of the respective clients filed jointly signed statement informing an agreed figure of Rs.35,37,176/-as the amount payable to the Respondent on account of work done but not paid and a figure of Rs.7,17,445/-as the amount due from the respondent to the petitioner on account of recovery against material reconciliation.

4. The learned arbitrator after considering rival contentions, as well as, the material placed on record gave reasoned finding that there was undue delay in supplying the gas and changed the specifications which were most essential requirements for marketing of gas connection by the Respondent and thereby concluded that the Petitioner committed manifest breach of contract.

5. Though there was clause No.44.1 and 59.2 for extension of time for completion of the work and, accordingly, the request was made to the Petitioner, but refused to grant extension. The Petitioner in view of Andheri fire incident pending execution of the contract changed the specifications which resulted in an extra work to be executed by the Respondents. This was also an additional factor for the Respondent to claim for a revised rate for the changed specifications. The Petitioner enhanced safety norms to adopt ISO certificate which required the Respondent to procure new safety tools which also caused delay in day-to-day execution of the work. There was delay in revision of rates also and the same was done in January 2004. There was delay in the third working session as approval from requisite authority (MMRDA) could not be obtained upto January 2005.

6. The Petitioner in view of clause 10.2 and 10.3, though necessary, failed to prepare joint construction programme. The Petitioner committed many breaches that resulted in delay in execution of the work. Therefore, taking overall view and the cumulative effects of defaults the learned arbitra