( 1 ) THESE are objections on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "dda" under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to the award of Shri R. K. Sundram, Sole arbitrator dated 16th March 1990. The award is in respect of the claims that arose out of the contract for plumbing and sanitary work in the players block of Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium Complex which was to be used for the Asian Games.

( 2 ) NOTICE of the filing of the award was served on DDA on 17. 9. 90 and the present objections by DDA were filed on 17th October 1990. Thus the objections appear to be within time. The claims appear to be based on alleged loss of profit suffered by the petitioner on account of foreclosure of the contract.

( 3 ) I have heard the parties in respect of each of the claims. In the objections Filed, there is no objection filed to any other claim. As suchexceptforclaimsno. l,2,10and 11 the award is acceptable to the respondents. At the bar also, the respondent s counsel conceded that there was no opposition to the award in respect of Claims No. 3,to 9 and in the light of legal position as settled the objections Nos. 10 and 11 are not pressed and the counsel agreed to confine his submissions to the award mainly on Claims No. 1 and 2.

( 4 ) AT the out set the objector raised a plea of delay in rsing the claim. . This question is necessarily a matter to be considered by the Arbitrator on evidence. I find from the award that the arbitrator has duly considered this aspect in the light of the material placed before and submissions addressed to him. Detailed arguments were advanced by both sides and the main thrust of the petitioner s argument was that it was the respondent-objector who was guilty of delay, firstly, in not handing over the site and thereafter not supplying the petitioners with drawings in time despite repeated reminders. . The petitioner has contended that respondent/employer cannot take advantage of their own wrong when they themselves are instrumental by their conduct in delaying the execution of work. They could not attribute any negligence to the petitioner nor could they deem the contract as repudiated because there is no communication from objector/respondent which would in an unqualified manner show that the contract had been repudiated and such repudiation was within a reasonable time. Having not done that it did not lie in the mouth of the respondent to claim deemed repudiation. He had cited various authorities including Hudsons "building and Engineering Contracts" 10th Edition, which on page 345 (SECT. 3) lays down "the exercise of the right to treat the contract as repudiated must be unqualified and made within a reasonable time", and Erndens "building Contracts and Practice" 8th Ed. Vol. l, which on page 58 (Chapter 3) lays down ". . . and what must be ascertained is what is to be taken as the intention which reasonable person would have had if placed in the situation of the parties". He has further cited Chitty on Contracts, 25th Edition. , to support his contentions, wherein on page 1510 has been observed as under:-

"the parties may expressly provide that the contract shall ipso facto determine upon the happening of a certain event. But such a provision is subject to the principle that no man can take advantage of his own wrong, so that one party will not be allowed to rely on such a provision, where the occurrence of the event is attributable to his own act or default. "

( 5 ) A perusal of the award show s that it is based on reasons which have a nexus with the material including documents placed before the arbitrator. It is not the province ofthe courts to look into the correctness or otherwise of the reasons unless such reasons are totally unsupported by any material on record and are perverse which is not the case here. The court is also not to look into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence.

( 6 ) IT has been repeatedly laid down in various authorities t