JUDGMENT
M.K. Sharma, J.
1. A contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents whereunder work of special repairs to staff quarters attached to ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, was to be executed by the petitioner. Since disputes arose between the parties while executing the aforesaid contract, the disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator Shri V.Nainani for adjudication and decision. The arbitrator appointed entered upon the reference, received evidence adduced by the parties and upon hearing the parties made his award on 9.1.1992.
2. The aforesaid award was filed in this court as against which objections have been filed by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondent and on the basis thereof proceed to decide this matter claimwise.
Claim No. 1:
3. This claim relates to a claim of Rs. 90,000/- on account of under-payment in respect of agreement item No. l. According to the petitioner the work executed by the petitioner required providing grunting of number of RCC rectangular columns also, the measurements for which were recorded by the respondent by taking surface measurements of the columns and deleting the overlapping thickness of the grunting. Petitioner further states that under the Hand Book of Method of measurement of building works and IS Guide, for finished surface measurements such deletion of overlapping thickness was not called for and thus considering the said fact the arbitrator should have allowed the claim of the petitioner.
4. I have perused the award passed by the arbitrator in respect of the same. I find on record that the arbitrator has taken note of the provisions of IS SP 27:1984 in respect of the aforesaid claim and on consideration and construction thereof came to the conclusion that in case of rectangular columns application of IS SP 27: 1984 would mean exclusion of overlapping thickness from surface area measurements. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid construction is wrong & the arbitrator has misapplied the provisions. However, the counsel failed to draw my specific attention as to why the said construction and interpretation could be said to be not tenable. The arbitrator has considered the applicability of the aforesaid IS SP 27:1984 to the facts of the case and on construction thereof has given his decision which in my considered opinion cannot be interfered with unless the petitioner could show that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award. No such error of law is apparent on the face of the award and therefore the contention of the counsel for the petitioner stands rejected and the award stands upheld.
Claim No. 2:
5. In respect of this claim the petitioner claims Rs. 7,000/- on account of under-payment in respect of agreement item No. 2. The arbitrator rejected the said claim on the ground that the petitioner could not furnish any evidence indicating any short record of measurements of item of rendering by the respondent. Since on appreciation of the evidence on record the arbitrator has come to a finding that there is no evidence on record justifying the aforesaid claim the same is inadmissible. The said award of the arbitrator cannot be interfered with and the same stands upheld.
Claim No. 3:
6. Claim of the petitioner as against this claim isr for payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of payment under Clause 10(CC) of the contract agreement. The arbitrator rejected the said claim holding the same to be untenable as no claim under Clause 10(CC) was provided for under the contract. It is an admitted position that contract agreement provides for payment under Clause 10(C) for variations in agreement rates. No claim under Clause 10(CC) was envisaged in the present contract. The objection filed as against this claim therefore, has no merit and the same stands rejected.
Claim No. 5:
7. Next objection filed by the petitioner is in respect of the award against claim No. 5, wherein the petitioner claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- due to prolongation of contract by the respondent. The said claim was rejected by the arbitrator on the ground that there was delay in completion of the work due to lapse on the part of the petitioner. Since the arbitrator has come to the aforesaid conclusion on appreciation of the evidence on record that the delay in completion of the work was mainly due to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to any damages due to prolongation of contract by the department. The initial period for completion of the contract expired but the work was allowed to be continued even after expiry of the contract and none of the parties reserved any right to claim damages due to delay in completion of work at that stage when the contract was allowed to be continued. Taking that factor into consideration also the arbitrator disallowed the aforesaid claim. No error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid conclusion and accordingly the said award of the arbitrator stands upheld.
Claim No. 6:
8. This claim relates to a claim of 18% pendentelite and future interest as against which simple interest @ 12% per annum is awarded by the arbitrator. The same is found to be justified. No other objection is raised and/or pressed before me by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, and thus I do not find any merit in the objections filed by the petitioner and the same stands dismissed.
9. In the result the award passed by the arbitrator is upheld and the same is made a rule of the Court. Decree in terms of the award is passed. Decree sheet be drawn in terms of the award. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation.