PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) DISPUTES and differences between the petitioner (herein after referred to as the owner) and the respondent (herein after referred to as the contractor)were referred to the arbitration of Sh. Swami Dial and Sh. O. P. Jain. Sh. Swamy dial is a retired Chief Engineer (CPWD ). Sh. O. P. Jain is a retired professor in structural Engineering from I. I. T. Delhi and is a well known personality in the field of structures.

( 2 ) I am noting the qualifications of the learned arbitrators as they are experts in the field of civil engineering and this fact has a material bearing on the objections raised.

( 3 ) THE two arbitrators entered upon reference in December 1989 and held over 30 sittings till award was published on 14. 02. 98.

( 4 ) I may note that delay was occasioned in publishing the award because at one stage of the proceedings, contractor refused to extend time for the arbitrators to publish the award. Owner had to file a petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking extension of time from this court. The said petition was allowed and thereafter, learned arbitrators could proceed ahead.

( 5 ) PETITION under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 filed by the owner has been registered as Suit No. 861a/98. Prayer made is to direct the arbitrators to file the award in this court and proceedings be initiated as per law.

( 6 ) ARBITRATORS were directed to file the award in this court. They did the needful. Notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties. Contractor has filed objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 which have been registered as IA No. 1204/2000.

( 7 ) THE operative part of the award reads as under:-"the steel, cement and bricks were to be supplied by the second party at the fixed rate as provided in the agreement and the price of these materials were to be recovered from the bills of the first party. As per clause 16 of the agreement earth filling in the plot was to be done by the second party. The work was started by the first party and the same continued till first week of May, 1988 as the first party on 6. 5. 88 wrote the letter to the second party detailing therein the various amounts payable by the second party. The second party wrote a letter dated 31. 5. 88 disputing the quality of the work done and further advising the first party not to execute the work further till so directed by the second party. After some correspondence, the second party vide letter dated 26. 5. 89 terminated the contract thereby not requiring the first party to do the work. The second party also approached the High Court regarding the appointment of their nominee arbitrator and also appointment of local commissioner and also inspecting the nature of the work with reference to defects etc. After our appointment as the arbitrators we also visited the site of work and found the cracks in the construction, particularly, in C-block where several cracks and defects found at various points and in structure. Further extensive rectification of structure of the building particularly load bearing walls was also required. Stair cases specially attached to block-C gone out of plum showing a tilt. Cracks were noticed in the junction of landing slabs and supporting walls. The roof of one of the floor was found sagging. Though the defects were also noticed in other blocks also but particularly maximum were noticed in block-C. The submission of first party was that the second party was under legal and contractual obligations to ask the first party to rectify the defects if any and only on failure of first party, the second party was competent to rectify such defects. In view of this second party is not entitled to any payment. Otherwise also such huge expenses cannot be claimed by way of so called rectifications of the work. We have considered the submissions made by the parties, the pleadings including the written submissions of the parties, the documents