R. M. Lodha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-appellant (hereinafter referred to as, Corporation, awarded contract for reconstruction and concretization of the road being Contract No. C-2 to the Respondent No. 1, Bharat Construction (for short, Contractor). The contractor under the contract was required to carry out the work in a phased manner including completion of certain preliminaries under the special directions/special conditions of the contract before commencement of the work. That there was delay in completion of work by the contractor within stipulated time is not in dispute. However, the case of the contractor is that they were given option by the Corporation to complete the work after the mansoon of 1990 and they opted to complete the work but asked for 30% rise in the contract amount which was not granted by the Corporation, as a result of which the contract stood foreclosed under the terms and conditions of the contract. The contractor invoked Clause 97 of the general conditions of contract for resolution of the dispute that arose between the parties and lodged claim for compensation, loss etc. before the sole Arbitrator.
(3.) The Corporation disputed the claim of the contractor before the Arbitrator and, inter alia, set up the case that the contract was foreclosed by it and the contractor was informed that the Corporation would not make any payment for any loss on account of inability on the part of the contractor to complete the work. The Corporation relied upon Clause 94 of the general conditions of the contract in this regard and stated that the said clause was clearly attracted.;