Prathiba M. Singh, J.

The present petition, under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter, "Arbitration Act") has been commenced after receipt of award dated 9th December, 2008 filed by the Arbitral Tribunal in this Court, for passing of a decree in terms of the award. Objections were filed by the Respondent, NTPC (hereinafter, "NTPC") vide I.A. No. 5570/2009 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The same are being disposed of by way of the present order.

2. One M/s Vijay Machinery Store (hereinafter, "Contractor") was awarded a contract for installation of fire protection systems, against prescribed specifications for the Ramagundum, Super Thermal Power Project, Stage I vide letter 01/CC/32-133/AC dated 24th March, 1982. The said contract contained an arbitration clause which reads as under:

"16.0 It is specifically agreed by and between the parties that all the differences or disputes arising out of this Contract or touching the subject matter of this Contract, shall be decided by process of settlement and arbitration as specified in Clause 25.0 and 26.0 of Section GCC, Conditions of Contract, Volume-I and provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply and Delhi courts alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the same."

3. The works were executed by the contractor, and the systems were taken over by NTPC on 4th August, 1986. On 14th October, 1987, vide a telex message sent to the Contractor, it was informed that all the pending bills of the Contractor were already cleared by NTPC. However, on 23rd November, 1987, the Contractor raised claims towards extra works, which it claimed to have undertaken. The claims raised by the Contractor were denied by NTPC on 21st June, 1988. NTPC gave detailed reasons as to why each of the claims of the Contractor was not maintainable. On 6th March, 1989, the contractor raised a total claim of Rs.74,80,122.97/- along with 18% p.a. to be computed from 1st June,1983 to 28th February, 1989. In this letter, the contractor relied upon several letters/messages exchanged between the parties. Vide this letter, the contractor informed NTPC that if the claims are not settled, it would be invoking arbitration.

4. Since there was no response, the contractor invoked arbitration on 9th December, 1989. In this letter, which was exhibit C-253, the amount of Rs.74,80,122.87/- was again claimed and Shri M. M. Sharma was appointed as the nominee Arbitrator by the Contractor. NTPC was also called upon to appoint its nominee arbitrator.

5. There was complete silence after this letter. As per the conditions of the General Conditions of Contract, if any particular party does not appoint arbitration, the mechanism under clauses 25 and 26 were to come into operation. Clauses read as under:

"25.0 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

25.1 Except as otherwise specifically provided in the Contract all disputes concerning questions of fact arising under the contract shall be decided by the Engineer subject to a written appeal by the Contractor to the Engineer, whose decision shall be final to the parties hereto.

25.2 Any disputes or differences including those considered as such by only one of the parties arising out of or in connection with the contract shall be to the extent possible settled amicably between the parties.

25.3 If amicable settlement cannot be reached then all disputed issues shall be settled by arbitration as provided in Clause 26 below

26.0 ARBITRATION

26.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the Owner and the Contractor, arising out of the Contract for the performance of the works whether during the progress of the works or after its completion or whether before or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the contract, it shall, in the first place, be referred to and settled by the engineer, who, within a period of thirty (30) days after being requested by either party to do so, shall give written notice of his decision to the