2013 (1) TMI 1066

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to the contractor is on account of escalation which clause 17.1 of the general conditions governing the contract expressly prohibited. The petitioner contends that damages have been awarded on account of idle labour and equipment which clause 18 of the general conditions specifically excluded. The petitioner questions the finding that the petitioner wrongfully retained the machinery and equipment contractor and suggests that the petitioner was so entitled under Clause 4.4.3 of the general conditions which allowed the petitioner to. retain the machinery and equipment of the contractor till such time that the petitioner's claim against the contractor was satisfied. The contract related to the construction of residential quarters for emp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted clauses in the contract. Clause 18 of the general conditions has not been referred to in the award as, it appears, that while dealing with the claim in paragraph 15.2 of the statement of claim, the employer did not refer to the perceived impermissibility of any claim on account of idle labour by virtue of clause 18 of the general conditions. 3. As to the challenge on account of clause 4.4.3 of the general conditions, the arbitrator has taken a view that if there was any claim against the contractor, the employer could withhold the machine and implements of the contractor during the period covered by the expression "completion of work," The arbitrator reasoned that since it was the petitioner herein which was "solely resp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trator that it was the petitioner herein which caused the delay in completion of the contract for a period of 20 months or so. 5. It is of significance that the finding of the arbitrator that the petitioner was guilty of 20 months' delay in the work being completed as not been sought to be challenged in course of the present proceedings. 6. The petitioner has referred to a judgment reported at (2010)1 Cal HN 747 for the proposition that since the arbitrator derives his authority from the same contract which contains the arbitration clause, the arbitrator cannot act in derogation of such contract. The proposition is beyond question but it has no manner of application in the present case. None of the three clauses that the petitioner he....