The court upheld the arbitrator's award, affirming that delays were attributable to the petitioner, justifying the respondent's claims for additional expenses.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, “Act”], the petitioner- Union of India [hereinafter, “UoI”] seeks to assail an arbitral award dated 01.10.2014, by which a learned sole arbitrator has adjudicated disputes between the parties under an agreement dated 02.09.2005, bearing No. 24/ee(E)/FCED/2005-06. By way of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.23,09,504/- has been awarded to the respondent- Jasbir Singh, sole proprietor of M/s Kalsi Engineers.

A. Facts:

2. The petitioner invited tenders in the year 2005 for the execution of electrical work at the Regional Labour Institute at Sector- 47, Faridabad, Haryana. The tender was awarded to the respondent under a letter of award dated 18.08.2005. The contractual value of the work was Rs.24,91,256/-, and the period for completion of work was stipulated as nine months, calculated from the 22^nd day after the award of the work, i.e., 10.09.2005 to 10.06.2006. UoI issued a letter of commencement to the respondent on 02.08.2005. The time for completion of the work was extended on 09.06.2006 until 10.08.2006, and again on 07.08.2006 until 09.10.2006. The work was ultimately completed on 30.05.2008, and a completion certificate was issued on 08.12.2008.

3. The respondent raised demands for additional amounts, predicated upon loss suffered due to non-availability of work front, delays in approvals, payments, etc. After certain correspondence between the parties, the respondent invoked arbitration by a communication dated 18.05.2009, addressed to the Chief Engineer.

4. The learned arbitrator was appointed by an order of this Court dated 27.10.2009 in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Act [Arb.P. 310/2009].

5. The respondent filed a Statement of Claim on 12.02.2010, enumerating his claims as follows:-

“CLAIM NO. 1: Losses suffered, and additional expenses incurred due to increased rates of Labour and material over and above quoted rates on the value of the work done after stipulated period i.e. 10.6.2006, Rs. 21,00,072/-………….

CLAIM NO. 2: Losses suffered, and additional expenses incurred on account of staff, overheads and establishment expenses beyond stipulated period i.e. 10.6.2006 to the date of completion i.e. 30.5.2008. Rs. 5,01,507/-…………

CLAIM NO. 3: Losses suffered due to idle skilled labour Rs.3,42,520/…………….

CLAIM NO. 4; Refund of Security deposit including earnest money Rs.1,31,238/-………

CLAIM NO. 5: Less payment/no payment and wrong payment for substituted item of the Agreement item no. 21 to 24 - Rs.41,865/-……

CLAIM NO. 6: interest on the above payments @18% p.a. from 4.11.08 till actual date of payment…….

CLAIM NO. 7: Cost of Arbitration proceedings as per actual estimated at Rs, 2,00,000/-…………

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Ld. Arbitrator be pleased:

i) to award the amounts claimed under claims No. 1 to 3 and 5;

ii) to award the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on all the claimed amounts 1-3 and 5 and also on delayed payment of claim No. 4 as claimed under claim No.6;

iii) to award the cost of the proceedings of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed under claim No.7 to the claimant.”

6. The UoI filed a statement of defence on 20.08.2010.

7. The learned arbitrator first made an award dated 28.03.2013, awarding a sum of Rs.23,09,504/- in favour of the respondent.

8. The award was challenged by UoI before this Court in O.M.P.(COMM) 846/2013, and was set aside with the consent of learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 24.10.2013. The disputes were remitted to the arbitrator for fresh consideration.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed, as recorded by the order of the learned Arbitrator in the impugned award dated 01.10.2014:-

“i. Whether the claimant is entitled to the claims or any of them or part thereof? If so the amount against each claim. OPC

ii. Who is entitled to what cost.

iii. Final Relief.”

10. Evidence was led by the respondent herein. UoI chose not to fil