1996 (8) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (2) The petitioner and the first respondent entered into an agreement dated February 6, 1988 by virtue of which the petitioner was to execute the work of construction, namely "Convenient Shopping Centre "near multi-storeyed flats at East of Kailash, Pocket II. The stipulated dates of commencement of the work and the competition thereof were February 16, 1988 & August 15, 1988 respectively. It is not disputed by both the parties that the work was actually completed on November 2, 1989. The payment of the final bill was made to the petitioner on March 21, 1991. After the payment of the final bill, the petitioner raised certain disputes which were referred to the abovementioned arbitrator on September 6, 1991. The arbitrator after ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....han the one arrived at by the arbitrator. Rather appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the court can question. Learned counsel for the first respondent has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the award in so far as claims No. 2,3,4,7 and 11 are concerned. The learned counsel is also not able to show as to how the Arbitrator travelled outside the agreement while dealing with claims 2,3,4,7 and 11 of the petitioner. Basically his argument concerns the merits of the award. This is one area in which the court cannot interfere. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent in regard to the challenge to the award in respect of claims No. 2,3,4,7 and 11 is rejected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments relied upon by the claimant in support of his claims. Basically, claim No.8 is for the work executed by the petitioner beyond the stipulated date of completion and claim No.9 is based on expenses incurred for maintenance of establishment by it beyond that date. One of the arguments of the claimant recorded by the arbitrator is that the delay in the execution of the work was due to the reasons attributable to the respondent. If this contention is to prevail then in that event the claimant is certainly entitled to damages. This is precisely the reason for which the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000.00 in favor of the claimant. It is not disputed that the work was completed on November 2, 1989 while the stipulated date of complet....