( 1 ) BY this common Judgment, both the petitions, being O. M. P. No. 1 of 2000 and O. M. P. No. 2 of 2000 can conveniently be disposed together. It is not In controversy that question Involved in both the abovesaid matters are identical and, therefore, they can be taken up together. For sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from O. M. P. No. 1 of 2000, entitled Airports Authority of India versus m/s. S. N. Malhotra and Sons and another.

( 2 ). The Airport Authority of India has filed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of the arbitral award.

( 3 ). The work of special repairs to Terminal Building at IGI Airport, Terminal-II during 1996-97 regarding certain renovation of a particular area had been awarded to the to the respondent M/s. S. N. Malhotra and sons. The amount settled was negotiated at rs. 9,01,797. 00. The agreement was entered into between the parties on 18/9/1996. The work was to commence on 31/8/1996 and it had to be completed on 28/2/1997. After the final bill had been made, respondent had set up certain claims vide letter dated 30/6/1998. He invoked the arbitration agreement and requested for reference of the said dispute to arbitration. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as the sole arbitrator, subject to admissibility of clause 25 of the agreement between the parties. The arbitrator had submitted the award on 30/9/1999.

( 4 ). The applicant asserts that the award is liable to be set aside because Rs. 39,839. 00 has been allowed on account of non-sanction of the extension of time. It is claimed that the said claim could not be decided by the arbitrator and it could only be adjudicated by the competent authority under Clause 2 of the agreement. The award is further being assailed alleging that the arbitrator acted without jurisdiction with respect to claims No. 1 (f) and 3 (c) with respect to non-payment of Item No. 64 and on account of security deposit. It is also the case of the applicant that the arbitrator acted without jurisdiction with respect to claim No. 1 (e) regarding non-payment of difference of cost or black and approved sample of red granite. Claim No. 2 on account of alleged loss in prof inability due to reduction in the scope of the work and claim No. 7 on account of cost of arbitration.

( 5 ). Reply has been filed and respondent No. 1 contends that it is his case that request for extension of time was submitted by him long back but the petitioner had failed to grant the extension of time and in the final bill paid on 24/3/1998 an amount of Rs. 39,839. 00 was with-held. The petitioner had granted the extension of time upto 1/7/1997 and levied compensation of Rs. 34,664. 00. It was an after-thought. It is denied that the arbitrator could not adjudicate the said dispute. Clause 2 of the contract did not cover the same. It would only apply if the contractor would have delayed the contracted work because of his own fault. Herein the delay was because of non-availability of site, wiring not done by the electrical department, non-availability of relevant drawings, non-approval;of pattern for fixing, granite and non-completion of electrical fixtures; on false ceiling and walls etc. Regarding other claims, it is contended that the petitioner had not sent any notice required under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act.

( 6 ). The first and foremost question that comes up and seeks an answer is as to whether the petitioner can raise the plea that the arbitrator acted without jurisdiction when such a plea was not taken before the arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that such an objection must be taken before the arbitrator and if it had not been taken, keeping in view the clear language of Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner is now debarred from raising such a plea.

( 7 ). Section 16 of the Act. reads as under :

16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.- (1) The arbitral t