R. K. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS First Appeal from Order arises out of the judgment and order dated 31st of January, 1992 passed by Sri H. N. Misra, Civil Judge, Roorkee, District Hardwar in original suit No. 160 of 1991 rejecting the objection of the appellant-defendant under Section 30 (a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and making award of the arbitrator rule of the court.
(2.) THE defendant-appellant entered into an agreement No. 1/ICCR of 1980-81 with the plaintiff-respondent for fabrication and erection of steel gates and hoists for new barrage across river Ganga at Bhimgoda, Hardwar. THE contract work was completed on 28th of June, 1986. THE work was certified by the appellant's Engineers to be satisfactory and upto the mark. THE claimant- plaintiff claimed certain amounts on account of re-imbursement of steel whereas the appellant (defendant) raised a counter-claim on account of excess issue of steel. Thus a dispute arose between the parties and it was referred to the sole arbitrator as per terms of agreement by L.R's. letters dated 10.7.1989 and 21.3.1990. THE arbitrator entered into reference on 4th of September, 1989. THE final award came on 11th of October, 1991. In the award, the learned arbitrator has allowed part of the claim of the claimant. THE pendente lite interest has been allowed at the rate of 14% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% on the principal. We have heard Sri R. K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P. C. Markanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent at length and in detail. We have gone through the Impugned judgment and the relevant award. The grounds of objection under Section 30 (a) of the Arbitration Act and the grounds taken in this appeal have also been perused and considered.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel has assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the different items of the claim were in respect of the disputes which had already got the decision of Engineer-in-Charge who was supervising the progress of the construction work at the sight and the contractor-claimant did not raise any written protest against the decision of the Engineer-in-Charge within stipulated time limit in accordance with the clause 22.01 of Part II of the agreement. So the decision had become final and the conclusion is binding on the claimant-contractor. So there was nothing to be arbitrated by the learned arbitrator and so the award is bad going against the terms of agreement in clause 22.01. The second ground of attack against the impugned award is that under clause 16.06, only 3% wastage of materials was to be taken into account but the learned arbitrator has awarded 14% wastage which is against the terms of agreement. Thirdly, the learned standing counsel has attacked the rate of interest awarded to the claimant at the rate of 14% which according to him should not go beyond 6% as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Code.;