Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) to assail the award dated 23.07.2010 passed by the arbitrator. The arbitrator in this case was appointed by the Chief Engineer of the petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2007. The arbitrator appointed is a retired Chief Engineer of Central Public Works Department (CPWD).

2. The broad facts in the background of which the present petition has been filed are as follows:

2.1 The respondent vide Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 25.02.2003 was awarded the work which is described as follows: “Excavation of Supplementary Drain up to DBL between RD 22580 to RD 23218m including lining with Hydraulically pressed CC tiles of size 300 x 300 x 50 mm on both side slopes of the drain” (hereinafter referred to in short the work).

2.2. The allocated time under the agreement was nine (9) months.

2.3. It is the stand of the petitioner that hindrance free site was made available to the respondent on 04.03.2003 and, therefore, the respondent had to execute the work on or before 03.12.2003. The total value of the work was pegged at Rs. 42,74,976/-.

2.4. Admittedly, time for executing the work was extended on several occasions. The stand of the petitioner was that the extension of time was provisional. According to the petitioner, time was extended between 31.01.2004 till 28.02.2006.

2.5. It is, though not disputed before me, by counsel for the petitioner that, on 07.05.2003 respondent informed the petitioner that there was impediment in the work being carried out as there was sludge found near the toilet block.

2.6. Despite, extension of time, according to the petitioner, the respondent stopped execution of work at site on 30.04.2004, and thereafter, abandoned the site on 24.04.2005.

2.7. Since the respondent, according to the petitioner, refused to carry on the work in issue, including additional/ extra work awarded to it on 18.11.2005, the petitioner rescinded the contract on 02.03.2006 by exercising its power under clause 3 of the General Conditions of the Contract (in short the GCC). The respondent, evidently, demanded current market rates for executing additional/ extra work, having regard to the fact that more than two years had passed since the contract was executed between the parties. The petitioner on the other hand felt that such a demand was beyond the terms of the contract obtaining between the parties.

2.8. According to the petitioner final measurements of the work executed by the respondent, were carried out between 16.03.2006 to 17.05.2007.

2.9 Evidently, the respondent invoked arbitration and raised claims on the petitioner vide communication dated 24.04.2007.

3. As indicated at the very outset, an arbitrator was appointed by the petitioner, on 03.08.2007. The respondent filed his statement of claims on 15.11.2007. The petitioner filed its defence with the arbitrator on 18.01.2008. Notably, at this stage the petitioner had not raised any counter-claims. The appointing authority, i.e., the Chief Engineer, after more than eight (8) months, vide communication dated 26.09.2008 referred counter-claims of the petitioner to the learned arbitrator for adjudication, pursuant to which, the petitioner evidently filed its counter-claims with the arbitrator on 06.02.2009.

3.1 To be noted, as per the averment made in paragraph 2(H) of the petition, evidently, at the stage of the institution of the petition, the unexecuted work; which was awarded to another contractor, at the risk and cost of the respondent, was still in the process of execution.

4. The learned arbitrator after giving due opportunity to the parties proceeded to pass the award on 23.07.2010, which is impugned in the present proceedings.

5. Before the arbitrator, the respondent had raised sixteen (16) claims, whereas the petitioner, apart from refuting the claims of the respondent, preferred five (5) counterclaims. A perusal of the award would show