The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections regarding lack of inherent jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to deal with certain claims could be raised at any time, and the court has the authority to set aside awards if the Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against decision dated 7th July, 1994 by the learned Single Judge. By the said decision award dated 22nd March, 1991 passed by Shri S. C. Gupta, sole Arbitrator was made rule of the Court after dismissing the objections filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as DDA, for short ). Various claims were made by the respondent/contractor before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave its award dated 22nd March, 1991 allowing some of these claims to some extent and dismissed all the counter claims of DDA. The award was filed in this Court. IA 1279/91 was filed by the Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar 759 respondent/contractor for making it rule of the Court whereas IA. 1280/91 was filed by the applicant which contained objections to the aforesaid award. Objections were preferred TO in respect of additional claim no. 1 and claim no. 2, claim no. 4, 8 and additional claim no. 3 and in respect of counter claims. As noted above, all these objections were rejected by the learned Single Judge and award was made rule of the Court and it was directed that decree be prepared in terms thereof. Interest @ 12% p. a. from date of award till payment was also granted.

( 2 ) IN this appeal which is preferred TO against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 7th July, 1994, the grievance was limited to claim nos 2,4, additional claim no. 3 and counter claim nos. 1 and 5. However, at the time of argument Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA pressed her objections only in respect of the award relating to claim no. 2, additional claim no. 3 and counter claim no. 1. Therefore, we proceed to examine the legality of the impugned judgment only in respect of these claims.

( 3 ) CLAIM no. 2 was preferred TO by respondent/contractor before the Arbitrator which related to work done beyond the deviation limit provided in the contract. There is no dispute that as per the Agreement there could be deviation to the extent of -or+ 20% of the work. However, if the work ultimately undertaken by the Contractor extended the deviation limit, as per clause 12-A of the Agreement he became entitled to a higher rate. There is no dispute that the work done by the Contractor was beyond the deviation limit provided in the contract. In such an eventuality the respondent was entitled to claim revision of rates supported by proper analysis in respect of such items for quantities in excess of deviation limit. However, as per clause 12-A of the Agreement respondent had to claim the deviation and submit proper analysis within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. On submission of these rates and analysis in support thereof Engineer-in-charge could revise the rates having regard to the prevailing market rates. For proper appreciation of clause 12-A is reproduced below:- Clause 12a:-

"in the case of contract or substituted items which individually exceed the quantity stipulated in the contract by more than the deviation limit, except the items relating to foundation work which the contractor is required to do under Clause 12 above, the Contractor shall, within 7 days from the receipt of order, claim revision of the rates supported by proper analysis in respect of such items for quantities in excess of the deviation limit, notwithstanding the fact that the rates for such items exist in the tender for the main work or can be derived in accordance with the provisions of Sub- clause (ii) of Clause 12 and the Engineer-in-Charge may revise their rates, having regard to the prevailing market rates and the Contractor shall be paid in accordance with the rates fixed. The Engineer-in-Charge shall, however be at liberty to cancel his order to carry out such increased quantities of work by giving notice in writing to the contract and arrange to carry it out, in such a manner as he may consider advisable, but under no circumstances the contractors shall suspend the w