S.N. Kapoor, J. - (1.) . In this case award has been filed by the arbitrator himself. Notices were issued to both the parties and Union of India has filed objections against the award.
(2.) . Relevant facts are as under: 2.2 Chief Engineer, N.S.G.P., C.P.W.D., New Delhi under his letter No. 15(13)92-A&C dated 22.10.1992 appointed Shri S.S. Juneja, as sole arbitrator to decide and make award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of clause 27. Accordingly the arbitrator Shri S.S. Juneja gave the award dated 26th October, 1994. 2.3 According to the objections filed against the award the work of construction of permanent complex for N.S.G.P. at Manesor - S.H. Construction of 3,00,000 litre capacity OH 65 near Petrol Pump was awarded to M/s. Mangla Builders vide agreement No. 12/EE/NSGP/D.II/89-90. The estimated cost of work was Rs. 16,77,948.00 while the tendered cost was Rs. 8,90,260.00 . The date of start of work was 26.2.1990 while the stipulated date of completion was 25th November, 1990. It was actually completed by the contractor on 2.3.1993. The arbitrator has ignored material facts and travelled beyond the scope of agreement and thereby committed misconduct; and the findings are contradictory and inconsistent with his own findings. According to the arbitrator himself there were certain deficiencies in the design in respect of mix of concrete and evaluation of wind and seismic forces for the worst conditions had not been worked out by the claimant. Yet, the learned arbitrator observed that the respondents have not disputed the evaluation for quantity as worked out by the claimants but have denied the claims on other grounds, and concluded that the claimant was entitled to compensation for variation in quantities over and above those required as per the provisions of I.S. codes. The learned arbitrator has also ignored a material document Exhibit R/12, and by not considering exhibit R/12 committed misconduct. Inconsistent conclusions against arbitrator's own findings amounts to misconduct. The learned arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award future interest at the rate of 14% per annum as the arbitrator has become functus officio after making the award. 2.4 These objections are being contested by the petitioner M/s. Mangla Builders. It is claimed that while granting claim No. 1 the reasons recorded by the arbitrator are logical and cogent. There is no alleged error much less error apparent on the record. The findings of the fact as set out in the Award are based on evidence on the record and the said findings of fact are not amenable to judicial review. Neither any ground exists nor has been disclosed in the objection petition to attract Section 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitrator Act, 1940. The objections filed on behalf of respondent under reply are barred by limitation. Allegations of misconduct or ignoring any material piece of evidence has been denied. 2.5 The Union of India reiterated their case by filing rejoinder to reply to the objections.
(3.) . I have heard the parties and gone through the record. Following three points need consideration: (1) Whether the arbitrator has misconducted in any manner while allowing claim No.1? (2) Whether the arbitrator could award future interest? (3) Whether the objections barred by limitation?;