( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th March, 1981 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Objections to the award filed by the DDA and made the award dated 3rd may, 1991 a rule of the Court and directed that the decree in terms of the award be passed.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment, the Delhi development Authority has filed this appeal. the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his challenge to the findings on counter-claims 5, 6 and 7 of the arbitrator which were upheld by the Single Judge. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the arbitrator was in error in rejecting the counter-claims of the DDA and learned single Judge was in error in upholding the Award.

( 3 ) COUNTER-CLAIM No. 5 is for Rs. 1. 50 lakhs for the quantity of the material found short during the technical" examination of the work. The learned arbitrator, in a detailed speaking Award, has mentioned that work was rescinded in December 1981 and subsequently the balance work got executed by some other agency. Thereafter, as per report and evidence placed before him the work was inspected by a technical examiner in 1982 and the report of the defects were sent by the Chief Technical Examiner in 1982. In the same award the learned arbitrator has mentioned that the respondent completed the work in December,1981 and the inspection had taken place admittedly in August, 1982 then the respondents cannot be accused of carrying out the work below specification. The arbitrator has observed that the case of the claimant is that the work was illegally and arbitrarily rescinded by the respondents in December, 1981 and subsequently the balance work got executed through another agency namely shri R. S. Rana. Thereafter, reportedly, the work was inspected by the Technical Examiner in August, 1982 and the report of the findings was sent by CTE to the Chief project Engineer on 4. 12. 1982. In this report the name of contractor is indicated as Shri R. S. Rana, i. e. the agency who executed the balance work after his contract had been rescinded. He was neither asked to be present at the time of inspection nor had any intimation of examination having been conducted. In fact, the report of the findings of the Technical Examiner was never received by him. It is only on 16. 5. 1985 that he was told that the work was found to be below specification and was asked to accept the payment at reduced rates.

( 4 ) THE findings of the learned arbitrator regarding claim no. 5 has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the arbitrator and upheld by the learned Single judge.

( 5 ) COUNTER-CLAIM No. 6 is for Rs. 1,32,939/- towards balance work which was executed at the risk and costs of the claimant through contractor by another agency. The learned Arbitrator has given detailed reasons regarding counter-claim No. 6. He has mentioned that the counter-claim is inter-linked with additional claim No. 2 of the claimant which has been discussed along with claim No. 2. According to the findings of the arbitrator the action of the department in rescinding the contract is wrong and unjustified. The plea of the respondents that the work was rescinded as the progress was slow and the quality of work was poor, as emerged from the check made by the Technical Examiner, has no legs to stand as the Technical Examiner checked the work in August, 1982 when the work had already been rescinded several months ago i. e. in December. 1981. This finding of the learned arbitrator has been upheld by the learned Single judge, we see no Justification in interfering with the finding of the learned arbitrator as approved by the learned Single Judge.

( 6 ) COUNTER Claim No. 7 pertains to the amount of rs. 20,628/- towards deduction in rates on account of oversize stone aggregate. The learned arbitrator gave the same reason that the work was rescinded in December, 1981 and