R.L. Khurana, J.—Vide agreement No. 115 of 1995-96, the work of "Construction of Type-VI Houses/Cottages, 4 Units, i.e. 9 to 12 under Rental Housing Scheme at Kasumpti, Shimla (SH : building portion including WS and SI)" was awarded to the respondent-Contractor Shri Rajesh Thakur involving a total cost of Rs. 43,15,502. As per the terms of the agreement, the work was to be completed by 29.3.1997, that is, within one year reckoned from 15th day of the date of the award of work. The respondent started the work on 30.3.1996. It, however, was not completed within the stipulated period of one year. Time for completion of work was extended upto 31.12.2000. At the time of granting the extension the respondent was specifically called upon to complete the work within the extended period, failing which action as per various terms of the agreement would be taken against him.

2. It appears that on a dispute having arisen between the parties, the respondent on 9.2.2001 sought the reference of the dispute to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. The dispute was accordingly referred to arbitration.

3. The respondent raised various claims before the arbitrator. No counterclaims were raised on behalf of the petitioner. The arbitrator, on the basis of the material placed before him by the parties, vide his award dated 12.4.2002 awarded a sum of Rs. 12,78,638 along with interest in favour of the respondent as under : Sl. No. Description of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded

1. Balance payment for work done. Rs. 8,49,660/- Rs. 7,50,026/-

2. Damages for prolongation of the work. Rs. 17,98,125/- 5,28,612/-

3. Payment for the item of removal of slip. Rs. 3,30,197/- Nil

4. Interest. @ 24% per annum @ 12% per annum (simple) on Rs. 7,50,026/-for nine months till the date of award.

5. Arbitration cost. Rs. 25,000/- Nil. Total: Rs. 12,78,638/-plus interest as awarded against claim No. 4. 4. The arbitrator further allowed future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum awarded, that is, Rs. 12,78,638 in favour of the respondent from the date of award till date of realisation of the amount.

5. Feeling aggrieved by and being dis-satisfied with the award of the arbitrator, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present objection petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. The award has been primarily assailed on the ground that the arbitrator in making the award has misread and mis-interpreted the terms of the agreement, especially clause 12 thereof.

7. Clause 12 of the agreement, in so far as, it is material for the purpose of the present case, reads : "The Engineer-in-charge shall have power to make any alterations in, omissions from, addition to or substitutions for, the original specifications, drawings, designs and instructions, that may appear to him to be necessary during the progress of the work and the contractor shall carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to him in writing signed by the Engineer-in-charge and such alterations, omissions, additions or substitutions shall not invalidate the contract and any altered, additional or substituted work which the contractor may be directed to do in the manner above specified as part of the work shall be carried out by the contractor on the same condition in all respect on which he agreed to do the main work. The time for the completion of the work shall be extended in the proportion that the altered, additional or substituted work bears to the original contract work, and the certificate of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive as to such proportion. Over and above this, a further period to the extent of 25% of the time so extended shall be allowed to the contractor. The rates for such additional, altered or substituted works under this clause shall be worked out in accordance with the following provisions in their respective order :— (i) If the rates for the additional, altered or