A failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of an agreement may result in an error apparent on the face of the record and may lead to the setting aside of an arbitration award.

( 1 ) DISPUTES having arisen between the parties in respect of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 for execution of the work of construction of 300 Janta houses in connection with internal development in Trans Yamuna area in Zone No. 2, the same were referred to the respondent No. 2 for adjudication in terms of the arbitration clause. The respondent No. 2 entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties and receiving the statement of claims and reply thereto and evidence produced by the parties on record, passed an award in respect of the aforesaid disputes on 29th December, 1993. The notice of the award was stated to have been received by the petitioner on or about 30. 12. 1993.

( 2 ) THE petitioner thereafter filed the petition in this Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for directing the respondent No. 2 to file the award in the Court with records of the arbitration proceedings. This Court issued notice to the Arbitrator on the said petition and upon service of such notice, the Arbitrator filed the award along with the records of the arbitration proceedings in this Court. Notice having been issued to the respondent No. 1i and upon service thereof, the respondent No. I filed objection against the award passed by the Arbitrator which is registered as I. A. 6547/1994. The objection filed by the respondent No1 appears to be against all the claims of the petitioner as allowed by the Arbitrator.

( 3 ) MR. Poddar appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Salwan appearing for the respondent No. 1 took me through the award passed by the Arbitrator and also the records of the arbitration proceedings and I have heard them at length.

( 4 ) CLAIM No. 1 (i) : In respect of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, the Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs. 27,185. 87. It appears from the award passed by the Arbitrator that the respondent No. 1 could not bring out any discrepancy concerning the items that have been claimed by the petitioner. The quantities and rates claimed by the petitioner were also not contested by the respondent No. 1. In that view of the matter, this award is upheld.

( 5 ) CLAIM No. 1 (ii): This claim relates to incorrect derivation of rates for certain extra / substituted items in respect of which the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,270. 80. The conclusion of the Arbitrator for awarding the aforesaid amount appears to be based on reasons and on appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore there could be no valid objection as against the aforesaid award.

( 6 ) CLAIM No. 1 (in): Mrs. Salwan appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that this part of the award passed by the Arbitrator awarding Rs. 49,262. 39 is not justified and is required to be set aside. The learned Counsel drew my attention to Clause 12 (a) of the agreement wherein it is provided that in the case of contract or substituted items which individually exceed the quantities stipulated in the contract by more than the deviation limit, the contractor is required to, within 7 days from the receipt of the order, claim revision of the rates supported by proper analysis in respect of such items for quantities in excess of the deviation limit. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Clause 12 (a) and did not lodge the claim within 7 days from the date of the order nor did it submit the analysis of the rate. The analysis of rates appears to have been furnished on 13. 1. 1986. It further appears from the records that the petitioner claimed market rates for the first time on 18. 9. 1985 without submitting any analysis of rates. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory provisions laid down in Clause 12 (a) of the agreement to claim revision of rates within 7 days from the receipt of the order supported by proper analysis of rates. In view of such failure on the part of the petitioner, the Engin