( 1 ) THIS appeal by Delhi Development Authority is directed against the judgment dated April 29, 1994 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the objections filed by it to claim no. 11 and making the award the rule of the court also in respect of that claim.

( 2 ) INDISPUTABLY, work "c/o 256 LIG DU s (New Pattern) at Dilshad Garden, Pocket - G, Zone E- 16, Delhi" was awarded by the appellant to U. Kashyap, respondent, and agreement no. 390/ee/hd 15/dda/84-85 also containing arbitration clause was executed between the parties. On dispute having arisen, R. J. Bakhru, Chief Engineer, C. P. W. D. (Retd.), was appointed as the sole arbitrator by Engineer Member of the appellant-Authority vide letter no. EM. 2/133/88 Arbn. /7457 -61 dated April 25, 190 to adjudicate upon the claims of the respondent. Respondent filed the claim statement containing 16 claims. Appellant filed counter statement of facts repudiating those claims. Arbitrator made and published the award on January 30, 1991.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT thereafter filed application under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking direction to the arbitrator to file the award in court and to make the same the rule of the court. In response to the notice of the filing of the award, appellant filed objection being I. A. No. 505/91 only against three claims, namely claim nos. 1, 11 and 14. By the judgment under appeal objections in respect of claim nos. 1 and 11 were dismissed while claim no. 14 was remitted back to the arbitrator for decision afresh and the award was made the rule of the court except on claim no. 14.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that under the said contract agreement the date of start of work was stipulated as August 20, 1984 while that of completition as August 19, 1985 but the work was actually completed on April 11, 1987. Extension of time upto April 11, 1987 granted to the respondent without levy of any compensation by the appellant.

( 5 ) UNDER aforesaid claim no. 11 the respondent had claimed Rs. 15,90,000. 00 towards increase in the prices of materials etc. for the work done after the stipulated date of completion. The arbitrator held that clause 10 (CC) of the agreement in question was based on various parameters and did not truly reflect the increase in market prices of the building materials and labour. Delay in execution of work was attributable to the appellant. In the last para the arbitrator concluded thus :-

"11. The net value of work done after stipulated date of completion i. e. 19. 8. 85 (after deducting the cost of stipulated materials e. g. cement, steel etc. supplied by the DDA at fixed prices) is Rs. 52,86,520. 00. On the basis of the cost indices for building works in Delhi as circulated and adopted by the CPWD from the time to time (Exh. . C/17), there has been effective increase of 18. 35 over cost of construction during the stipulated period of completion. Accordingly the increase in cost on Rs. 52,86,520. 00 (net value of work done after stipulated date of completion) works out to Rs. 9,67,433. 00. After adjusting an amount already paid to the claimants under clause 10 (CC) for period beyond stipulated date of completion, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,82,010. 00. I award Rs. 4,82,010. 00 under this claim in favour of claimants. "

( 6 ) SUBMISSION made by Ms. Anusuya Salwan appearing for the appellant was that towards escalation in the prices of materials and labour beyond August 19, 1985 the respondent is entitled to the amount calculated as per formula set out in clause 10 (CC) of the agreement and not on the basis of the cost indices for building works in Delhi as circulated and adopted by the CPWD as has been done by the arbitrator. In support of the submission strong reliance was placed by her on a decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Engineering Company Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Another, 1991 (2) Arb. LR 180. On the contrary, contention advanced by Shri Rajiv Nayar for the responden