Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgement and order dated April 25, 2000 passed by a learned Judge of this Court rejecting an application for setting aside of the award filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (In short "the Act")
(2.) On or about May 30, 1994 an agreement was entered into by and between the parties appointing the respondent/contractor for construction of 48 flats at premises Nos. 19C and 19D, Golf Club Road, Calcutta. It was stipulated in the agreement that the entire work, contracted for, should be completed and possession of the flats should be delivered within 18(eighteen) months from April 12, 1994.
(3.) After taking over the site the contractor progressed with the works to some extent, but could not complete the work within the time frame. By a letter dated December 23, 1994, the contractor, inter alia, stated that it was not possible for the contractor to recommence the work and to show minimum progress of the work due to reasons allegedly beyond their control and submitted a re-schedule of the work and asked for permission to restart the work. It was categorically stated in the said letter that opportunities should be given to the contractor to execute the work in accordance with the re-schedule failing which necessary actions, as per provisions of the contract, could be taken against it. It appears, that the authorities concerned accepted the requests of the con- tractor and although recorded that the work had been kept completely suspended from November 21, 1994 to December 30, 1994, but granted the contractor an opportunity to complete the work by January 31, 1995 within which the contractor was requested to complete the work and in case of failure on the part of the contractor to complete the work, the authorities concerned pointed out that there would have no other alternative but to terminate the contract.;