1. This judgment disposes of the objections by State Bank of India (‘SBI’) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘1940 Act’) by way of I.A. 1570 of 2006 to an Award dated 5th August 2005 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Plaintiff M/s. Kirat Chand Jain Family Trust (‘Trust’), i.e., the Contractor and the SBI arising out of an agreement dated 8th September 1992 executed between the parties in terms of which the Trust was entrusted with the task of constructing the pile foundation work in the Zonal Office Building of the SBI at Plot Nos. 59/4 and 61/4 at Sanjay Place, Agra.

Background facts

2. SBI invited tenders from intending Contractors for participating in the bid for the aforementioned work and after negotiations the Trust was issued the award letter on 1st July 1992 through SBI’s Architect M/s Kuldip Singh & Associates (‘Architect’). The Trust was put in possession of the site on 17th July 1992. A formal agreement was executed on 8th September 1992. The value of the contract was Rs. 92,39,316.70. The Trust was

to construct 590 piles and the period for completion was 7½ months from the date of the commencement which was to be ten days from the date of receipt of the work order, i.e., 1st July 1992.

1. 3. In terms of Clause 4 of the agreement, prior to the commencement of the piling operation, the Contractor was to make four bore holes of approximately 12 m depth at his own cost. Extra boring beyond that depth was to be paid extra. The tenderer had to obtain necessary information for making his offer and he had to examine the drawings, inspect the site of the work and acquaint himself with all local conditions, means of access to the work, nature of the work and all matters pertaining thereto. Clause 13 provided that the work had to be carried out “under the directions and overall supervision of and subject to the approval in all respects by the architects”. Clause 2 of the agreement defined the scope of the contract. The Contractor had to complete the work “with the directions of and to the satisfaction of the employer and architect”. The employer, i.e., SBI “with the concurrence of the architect from time to time” could issue “further drawings and/or written instructions details, directions and explanations” which were collectively referred to as ‘Employer’s Instruction’ with regard to the design quality or quantity of works, discrepancy in the drawings, removal and/or re-execution of works, amending and making good of any defects etc. Written instructions were to be given and where verbal instructions were given, they were to be confirmed in writing by the Contractor within a period of seven days. If they were not dissented by the Employer within a further period of seven days, they would deemed to be the Employer’s instructions.

2. 4. Under Clause 47, drawings were to be kept in the office of the SBI for reference of the Contractor, and were to act as guidelines for the Contractor to prepare a statement. For the actual construction separate working drawings were to be issued during execution from time to time. Clause 2.4 described Item of Work as under:

“a. Driving work for reinforced concrete piles.

.b. Fabricating and placing of all reinforcing steel bars as specified/shown in the drawings.

.c. Placing all work furnished by other traders in forms before casting the concrete.

.d. Cast-in-situ concrete in piles.

.e. Chipping and building of pile heads.

.f. All other miscellaneous concrete and related work shown in the drawings and/or called for in the schedule of items.

The work included consists of all necessary services and furnishing of all labour, materials, tools, equipments and related items for full performance of the contract items as shown in the drawings, or as specified or reasonably implied or incidental to constructions, developments between the traders”.

5. Clause 2.5 related to Setting Out Works and reads as under:

“The contractor shall set out t