Mool Chand Garg, J.

1. This appeal arises out of order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge Delhi dismissing the objections filed by the Appellant to the award dated 01.05.2007. By the impugned order the Court while dismissing the objections upheld the findings returned by the Arbitral Forum that it was the Appellants, who were responsible for having delayed the supply and installation of the Gen-sets beyond the time limit and that the Respondents could not have been blamed for the same as was pleaded by the Appellants before the Arbitrator and in the Lower Court. The Additional District Judge has also not agreed with the Appellants that the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,77,714/- by the Respondents as Liquidated damages by invoking Clause 13 of STCC by deducting the said amount out of dues payable was not in violation of Section 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and thus refused to direct the Respondents to return the said amount. Hence this appeal.

2. The learned ADJ vide impugned order not only held that the delay was caused in this case by the Appellant in supply, testing and commissioning of DG sets but also held that in a case where damages are pre-estimated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract for which both the parties had agreed, such damage claimed as liquidated damages in terms of the contract were fully justified and, therefore, the award delivered by the Arbitrator in this case was sustainable in law and was not required to be set aside.

3. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the Respondent placed upon the Appellant work order W.O No. LPG/Engg/3335 dated 20.07.2000 and LPG/Engg/3386 dated 15.09.2000 for supplying, testing and commissioning of DG sets at various locations. The work was to be completed by stipulated dates i.e. by 17.11.2000 and 12.01.2001 respectively. However, the work was not completed by the specified dates and therefore the Appellant sought extension of time from the Respondent. The extension of time was not granted. The Respondent also withheld an amount of Rs. 10,77,714/- as liquidated damage from the dues payable to the Appellant as per Clause 13 of Special Terms and Conditions.Vendor hereby agrees to pay to the corporation by way of liquidated damages and not as a penalty, an amount equal to (one half percent) of the arterial so delayed for each week part thereof of such delay in sitting of the equipment subject to a maximum of 10% (ten [percent) of such prices.

4. The Appellant raised a claim for recovery of the aforesaid amount by invoking Clause 23 of Special Terms and Conditions of the Contract (hereinafter referred to as the ?STCC) before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator vide award dated 01.05.2007 came to the conclusion that the time was essence of the contract. Delay was caused by the claimant i.e. the Appellant in supplying, testing and commissioning of DG sets. The Arbitrator further observed that Respondent has a right to withhold the said amount of Rs. 10,77,714/- as liquidated damages. So, there was no question of making refund of the same and it was them who were at fault in causing the delay in performance of the contract in question.

5. Appellant filed objections to the award before the Addl. District Judge by pleading that not only that the impugned order was illegal, perverse and against substantial provisions of law but it was also in ignorance of the material available on record inasmuch as arbitrator has not considered letter dated 16.11.2000 issued by the Respondent. The arbitrator also failed to notice that there was no evidence led on behalf of the Respondent for invoking Clause 13 of the agreement and to withhold a sum of Rs. 10,77,714/- out of the dues payable to the Appellant without proving the damages caused to them. The Appellant has relied upon the provisions contained under Section 73 and 74 of the Contract Act to substantiate his arguments.

6. The ADJ rejected the plea of the Appellant to set aside the arbitral a