( 1 ) (PLAINTIFF on 4. 1. 63 contracted with defendant to supply 19,600 tents @ Rs. 22. 625 Plaintiff made part supplies and then Sought extention of time for the rest. Deft. began recovering 2% P. M. from plaintiff s bills and rate was also agreed to reduction @rs. 211. 50. When there was further delay, contract was cancelled. He was still to supply 9450 tents. Deft. then bought 1163 tents @ Rs. 217 under the risk purchase clause. However it claimed Rs. 72,675. 00 from plaintiff. Matter was referred to Arbitrator who gave an award for Rs. 36,000. 00 Plaintiff Challenged this. One of the objections was that Deft s actual loss was much less than the sum awarded and that the award was based on no evidence on record. The issues were whether there was error of law apparent on the face and whether it was based on no evidence.) Judgment para 10 onwards is:-

( 2 ) CLAUSE 11 (3) of the Conditions of Contract giving the right to the Union of India to recover the losses suffered by them on account of contractor s failure to supply the contracted goods came up for interpretation before Prakash Narain, J. in Union of India v. M/s. Tribhuwan Das AIR 1971 Delhi 120. The contention of t