( 1 ). By this order, I would be disposing of the suit and the objections preferred by the respondent Union of India by way of IA. 345/93 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.

( 2 ). Petitioner had been awarded the contract for construction of the laboratory building for the Institute of Pathology at the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and Agreement No. 7/ee/cd. IX/85-86 was antered into. Clause 25 of the said agreement provided for reference of disputes to the arbitrator. The arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award.

( 3 ). Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S. S Dudeja, nominated by the respondent Union of India, in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement. The learned arbitrator has made and published his Award bearing No. ARB. SST. 438 dated 24th of May, 1993.

( 4 ). The learned arbitrator filed the Award in Court on 4. 4. 1994. Notice of the Filing of the Award was issued on 17. 5. 1994. Petitioner accepted notice of the Filing of the Award on the said date itself. Respondent Union of India was served with the notice of Filing of the Award on 14. 7. 1994. The objections in question were filed on 3. 1. 1994.

( 5 ). One of the objections taken by the petitioner is that respondents had notice of making and publication of the Award on 24. 51993 and it was in pursuance of the same that they Filed objections on 3. 1. 1994. These, the petitioner contends, were barred by limitation. Respondent Union of India, on the other hand, asserted that since the respondents were served with the notice of Filing of the Award on 14. 7. 1994, the objections to the Award could be filed within 30 days thereof and, therefore, the objections filed earlier cannot be disregarded on this account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed this objection and, accordingly, the objections were taken up for disposal on merits.

( 6 ). Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India, during the course of his submissions, has confined his objections to the Award in respect of Claim Nos. 1, 5 and 10.

( 7 ) THE learned arbitrator had directed refund of Rs. 35,000. 00 to the petitioner out of a total rebate of Rs. 65,377. 00 recovered by the respondents. It may be noted that petitioner had offered 1% rebate to the respondents in the event of regular monthly payments being made in case the gross amount of work done in the month exceeded Rs. 25,000. 00. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that payments had been deferred at the request of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to any refund of rebate, as directed by the learned arbitrator. Further, it was contended, that the sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 had been fixed without any basis. The learned arbitrator, on consideration of the evidence, has returned the finding that there were defaults in making monthly payments by the respondents and strictly under the agreement clause, the respondents were not entitled to recover any rebate. However, since a certain number of monthly bills had been paid on time, he directed refund of part of the rebate recovered, i. e. Rs. 35,000. 00 only, which he found to be just and fair, based on the factual position. The arbitrator has indicated his thought process. He is not required to give the exact computation. The finding of fact that there were defaults in monthly payments by the respondents is not assailable in these objections. There is no error apparent on the fact of the record in respect of this claim. The objection to the Award on this account is without merit.

( 8 ). Learned counsel for the respondet. is next assailed the Award in respect of Claim No. 5 for. damages for idle shuttering and Claim No. 10 on account of loss and damage due to idle labour establishment, T and P due to the prolongation of the contract period. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the arbitrator had failed to appreciate the evidence and had erred in ignoring