ORDER :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.-The appellant through the medium of the instant appeal filed under Section 37 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 (for brevity ‘the Act’) has thrown challenge to the order dated 27.05.2015 (for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar (for brevity ‘court below’) passed in File No. 08/Arb. titled “Ab. Salam Mir vs. Union of India and others”.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal the original contractor/respondent herein, namely, Abdul Salam Mir died and consequently, his legal heirs came to be substituted as respondents 1 to 5.

3. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, a brief description of the facts is summarized as under:-

i) That upon issuance of a NIT by the Chief Engineer HQ 31 Zone, C/o 56 APO /appellant herein, a contract bearing No. CESZ-33/93-94 came to be awarded for provision of Security Wall, Fencing, Watch Towers and Security Lights at Khundru station to the contractor/ predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein. Post issuance of letter of award, the contractor claimed to have mobilized his men, machinery, equipment and other resources for speedy execution of the contract work within the stipulated time, being 18 months prescribed in the tender from the date of commencement of the contract which however, got delayed and consequently, resulted into prolongation in the period of contract.

ii) That the said delay in completion of the contract was attributed to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the department/appellant herein as the period of completion had been extended without levy of any compensation.

iii) That despite the aforesaid delay during the currency of the contract various disputes arose in connection with the subject contract between the department/appellant herein and the contractor and upon pressing into service the arbitration clause, an arbitrator, namely, Sh. Krishan Kumar (Chief Engineer) from amongst the panel of arbitrators (Pune) came to appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief in terms of of condition 70 of the IAFW-2249, forming part of the contract agreement;

iv) That the arbitrator so appointed entered upon the reference, adjudicated upon the disputes and passed an arbitral award on 25.09.2002;

v) That during the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator the contractor had sought adjudication of various disputes including the one pertaining to the damages sustained on account of “Prolongation of Contract” which claim in the estimation of the department/appellant herein was not open to the arbitration, however, the arbitrator on the strength of the provisions contained under Section 16 of the Act, opined that the claims raised are capable of being adjudicated before the arbitrator.

vi) That the contractor had sought adjudication of 18 claims out of which 06 claims came to be granted partially by the arbitrator.

A brief description of the claims made and allowed by the arbitrator for brevity and convenience are detailed out hereunder:-