Arbitrator's award upheld based on specific provisions of the Agreement and relevant legal principles.

( 1 ) AS disputes had arisen between the parties, Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Arbitrator and the disputes were referred to him. After adjudication learned Arbitrator gave award dated 21st August, 1996 which was filed in this Court. Certain claims were awarded to the respondent herein. Objections to this award were filed by the appellant-Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short ). These objections were dismissed with costs by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated September 14,1999 and award dated August 21,1996 was made rule of the Court and decree was passed in terms thereof. However, as far as award of interest for pre-suit period is concerned, the award was modified to the extent that in respect of claim Nos. 1 to 4, instead of awarding interest from March 31,1990 to March 7, 1995, it was held that respondent would be entitled to interest w. e. f. October 1,1991 to March 7,1995. The present appeal has been filed by the DDA against the aforesaid order dated September 14,1999.

( 2 ) IN the grounds of appeal, the challenge was confined to the award in respect of Claims 7, 14, 17 and 20 to 22. However before us, learned Counsel for the appellant, during the argument, advanced contention only in respect of Claims 14 and 17, and in respect of award of rate of interest insofar as Claims 20 to 22 are concerned.

( 3 ) UNDER claim No. 14, the respondent had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,55,855. 00 (Rupees one lakh fifty-five thousand eight hundred fifty-five only) in terms of Clause 12a of the Agreement for the deviation in Item No. 10. 2 of the Agreement. The claim was based on the analysis of rates submitted by the respondent to the appellant. It was contended that this claim has wrongly been awarded relying upon the analysis of rates submitted by the respondent to the appellant inauch as mere filing of the analysis was no evidence and therefore award was based on no evidence. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kochar Construction Company v. Union of India and Another, reported in 1994 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 269. The judgment was rendered by the Bench of which one of us (Arun Kumar, J.) was a member. A perusal of the judgment would show that there was a dispute regarding claim No. 3 which pertained to extra payment due to escalation of rates for the work performed after the due date for completion of works. The Arbitrator held that respondent Department had been in default and had committed breach of contract inasmuch as delay in commencement of work was on their account and it was further held that Contractor had executed work of gross value of Rs. 4,78,159. 00 after the stipulated date of completion of work and was entitled to increase @ 60% on the said amount which worked out to Rs. 2,86,895. 00 When the said award was filed in this Court respondent Department had filed objection to the award. The learned Single Judge agreed with the Arbitrator that Department was responsible for prolongation of work and rescission of contract by respondent was illegal and unjustified. However, on merit, the award of the Arbitrator on claim No. 3 was not sustained and was set aside. The Contractor filed appeal and the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment upheld the conclusion of the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was no material on record to sustain the claim of the Contractor and the Contractor/appellant had mainly relied on cost analysis which could not be accepted as evidence of expenditure on account of increased cost of construction even if the cost analysis was not traversed by the respondent and that there was no independent evidence led in support of the claim.

( 4 ) IN the instant case, the Arbitrator has given reasoned award. Claim No. 14 is dealt with as per Clause 12-A of the Agreement entered into between the parties. This clause deals with deviation in the quantum of work.