1. This objection petition has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act,1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raising various objections to the award dated 20.11.1996 of the Arbitrator. I am proceeding with the judgment in as much as the counsel for the DDA had argued yesterday and today and neither yesterday nor today the counsel for the non-objector is available. Accordingly, I have no option but to decide the case on merits in as much as Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocate, appearing as the counsel for the non-objector says that he is not in a position to argue the matter.

2. Though DDA has raised many objections and many claims running into approximately around 40 in number, however, since except the claims which are discussed below most of the objections pertained to factual issues and therefore were not and could not be seriously pressed by the counsel for the objector.

3. That leaves us with claim Nos.1(e) and (f), claim No.2.1, claim No.3.4, claim No.3.11, claim No.3.17, claim No.4.1, claim No.4.4, claim No.5, claim No.6 and claim No.7.

4. Claim Nos. 1(e) and 1(f) were the claims which pertained to claims of the contractor with respect to charges towards laying of the pipes. This issue is dealt with by the Arbitrator in from pages 18 to 21 of the award. The learned Arbitrator has arrived at a finding of fact that the claimant has been short paid and has not been paid for the entire length of laying of the cement concrete. There is a finding of fact in this regard with respect to the amount of work for which payment has not been made by the objector which has been duly considered by the Arbitrator and such finding of fact could not be challenged by any contra evidence. The Arbitrator in this regard has finally held as under:

“ The statement of facts for P/L C.C 1:5:10 around pipes under claim no.1(d) have been verified from the final bill and it is seen that following payments have been made:

For Claim No. 1(e):

Item Quantity Difference

No. paid not paid

-------------------------------

13.2 579.07 M 321.18 @ Rs.39.31X 1.4641 = Rs.18,485.12

13.3 257.89 M

--------------------------------

For Claim No.1(f):

Item Quantity Difference

Paid not paid.

----------------------------------

EI 5.1 536.39 M 149.78 @ Rs.53.50 = Rs.8013.23

13 5.2 386.61 M

----------------------------------

Thus it is very clear that the Claimants have not been paid fully for the work done by them.

Considering all aspects of the claim and submissions made by both the parties and in the interest of equity and justice, I award an amount of Rs.26,498.00 to the Claimants.”

5. The next claim with respect to which award has been passed by the Arbitrator and which has been objected to by the objector is claim No.2. This claim of the contractor pertains to using different sections in the steel doors and windows by the contractor. The basic contention which was raised by the objector before the Arbitrator was that the Indian Standard Specification subsequent to the entering of the contract would apply because by reference to the Indian Standard Specification according to the objector reference has necessarily to be made to the prevalent Indian Standard Specification. The Arbitrator has however held that since a specific Indian Standard Specification is mentioned in the contract, it is not open to the objector to contend to the contrary. There is nothing unreasonable about this finding of the Arbitrator and therefore this claim also has no merit. For the sake of clarity the relevant finding of the Arbitrator is reproduced as under:

“ (ii) The agreement (certified copy supplied by the Respondents) applicable to this contract specifies that, “ the relevant I.S.I. standard for works not covered by para 3.1.1. applies.” The relevant IS specification is IS:7452-1982 in which the section F7B has been replaced by section F7D. This code was issued in 1982 prior to the date of