ORDER :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Set aside the award passed by the Ld Arbitrator dated 22.10.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator Sh J .S. Sharma in Agreement No. 01/EE/MPD-I/2018-19 titled as M/s Satish Builders Vs Union of India in Arbitration Case No. JSS/ARB/4, received by Petitioner on 22.10.2022, to the extent it awards claims to the respondent contractor and rejects counter claims of the petitioner;

b) Direct cost of the proceedings in favour of the petitioners/objectors and against the respondent;

c) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble tribunal deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. In January 2018, the Contractor/respondent was awarded a Contract for work by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) (hereinafter referred to as “CPWD/petitioner”). The first Contract was awarded vide Agreement No. 06/EE/CUHPD/2017-18 for the tendered value of INR 21,44,15,236 which was shut as the funds allocated by the client for the same were exhausted.

3. In between the execution of the work under the first Contract, another Contract for work vide letter dated 18th May 2018 was awarded to the respondent, and Agreement no. 01/EE/MPD-1/2018-19 was executed for the tendered value of INR 2,84,94,777. The stipulated time of completion was 6 months.

4. On or about 16th November 2018, the 6th RA bill was released whereby the Central University of Haryana (CUH) Mahendergarh (hereinafter referred to as "Client") was requested to provide funds as there was a temporary unavailability of funds in the month of December 2018 and January 2019.

5. The issue of funds was known to the respondent in view of which a letter dated 20th December 2018 was sent by the respondent requesting the CPWD/petitioner to grant extension and release the amount withheld from 6th RA bill. In the aforesaid letter the respondent undertook that no extra claims would be made.

6. The respondent’s request was approved by the then Assistant Engineer, CPWD vide letter dated 21st December 2018, and extension of time till 31st March 2019 and the release of the withheld amount of INR 7,12,444 was granted on 27th December 2018.

7. On the very next date of extension, the respondent vide letter dated 22nd December 2018 submitted the 7th RA bill claiming INR 92,11,697 which was later revealed to be a design to repudiate the Contract. The 7th RA bill was passed for INR 43,90,947 after adjustment of amount advanced earlier as per the Clause 10B of the Agreement, INR 1 was released on 7th March 2020.

8. While the funds were awaited from the Client, the respondent, repudiated the said Contract vide letter dated 18th January 2019.

9. In the month of January 2019, when the funds were made available, a meeting between the CPWD/petitioner and the Agencies including the respondent was held on 11th February 2019 and the minutes of meeting thereto were issued vide letter dated 12th February 2019, inter alia, to the effect that the respondent shall complete the work. By agreeing to complete the work, the repudiation letter by the respondent stood withdrawn casting an obligation to complete the work.

10. From April 2019 to October 2019 various letters were issued granting extension of Contract so as to enable the respondent to complete the balance work. On 30th October 2019, the respondent vide letter inter alia stated that the work is not closed.

11. On account of respondent not resuming work, several letters/reminders were issued by the CPWD/petitioner requesting the respondent to start the work.

12. On 30th December 2012 the CPWD/petitioner issued a final notice to the respondent demanding that the work may be resumed immediately, failing which it would determine the Contract as per Clause 3(a) and 3(b), and in consequent to the final notice, the Contract was determi