JUDGMENT :

Surjit Singh, J.

These objections, u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have been filed by the Union of India, against the award dated 30.5.2001 of the Arbitrator, with regard to Claims No. 1, 2 and 4. Prayer has been made for setting aside the award with regard to the aforesaid three claims.

2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Executive Engineer, Shimla Central Division No. 1, C.P.W.D., invited tenders for certain prefabricated structures. Respondent was one of the tenderers. The rates quoted by him and one more party were found to be lower than the rates quoted by other tenderers. One of the conditions of the tender, i.e. Condition No. 3 of the Special Conditions was that in case the consumption of the quantity of the steel was found to be less than the quantity indicated in the work schedule, recovery at the rate of Rs. 16,000/-, per ton, would be made from the contractor. The respondent did not specify the quantity of the steel, which he was to use in various types of structures. The tenders were opened on 1.10.1994. It was then that the Executive Engineer noticed that quantity of steel to be used in various items of work had not been specified by