JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--Present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed challenging the award dated 2nd August, 2011 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

2. Brief background is that the Petitioner-M/s. Satya Parkash & Bros (P) Ltd. (hereinafter `Contractor') was awarded a contract for work of improvement of Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. The stretch was about 4 kms. The work involved the development and widening of the road from four lanes to eight lanes including construction of drains, footpaths and extension of culverts etc. Initially work was awarded to a sole proprietary firm of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. The proprietary firm was thereafter converted into the company namely M/s Satya Parkash & Bros (P) Ltd. There is no dispute in the present case in respect of the company taking over the work of the sole proprietary firm.

3. Award of the work took place on 16th May, 2002. Date of start of work was 17th May, 2002. As per the award, the date of completion of work was to be 16th May, 2003. Due to various reasons, the contract was foreclosed on 26th October, 2004. The actual date of completion was taken to be 26th November, 2004. At the time when the contract was foreclosed, only 200 meters of the road was left for development.

4. The Contractor had various disputes with the Government. Basic disputes were in respect of clearance of the final bill, which was delayed considerably by the Government. Contractor also raised claims in respect of escalation, idle machinery and deployment of idle manpower. However, finally vide letter dated 21st February, 2007, the Contractor sought appointment of Arbitrator and raised various claims in respect thereof. The total claims were eight in number relating to claims on account of pending final bill, idle men & machinery, loss of profit, interest on delayed payments, increase in the rates of materials & labour under clause 10C/10CC, loss due to prolongation of contract.

5. The Government failed to appoint the Arbitrator. Thus, the Contractor was forced to file an arbitration application being A.A. No.195/2007. Vide order dated 15th January, 2008, the said petition was disposed of by appointing a Retd. Judge of this Court, Justice Jaspal Singh as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

6. Before the Arbitrator, the Contractor quantified his various claims. Final bill was also infact released after the arbitration proceedings had commenced i.e. sometime in the year 2011.

7. Claims raised by the Contractor were as under:

Claim No.1 -Claim towards the final bill

Claim No.2 -Claim of execution of increased/additional quantity of work.

Claim No.3 -Claim of escalation of Rs.72,58,640/- due to various hindrances resulted for almost delay of 15 months.

Claim No.4 -Claim due to delay of machinery, deployment including the extra expenses.

Claim No.5 -Claim due to delay (extra manpower which was deployed)

Claim No.6 -Prolongation of contract, loss/profit in view thereof.

Claim No.7 -Pendente lite and future interest.

Claim No.8 -Litigation cost and expenses.

8. Findings of the learned Arbitrator in respect of various claims are as under:

Claim No.1-Learned Arbitrator awarded interest on the amount of Rs.17,32,156/- @ 9% per annum from 1st June, 2007 till 30th March, 2011 when the final bill was paid.

Claim No.2-Nil award.

Claim No.4-Nil award.

9. All the claims relating to delay were considered by the learned Arbitrator together and in respect thereof, the learned Arbitrator held that the claims were not liable to be granted in view of the conduct, that despite there having been several hindrances, the work itself was not stopped because of these hindrances.

10. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that the learned Arbitrator has gravely erred in not allowing the escalation. It is further submitted that the hindrance register being an admitted document between the parties clearly records va