- (1.) This is an application to set aside an award. It is based on two grounds, namely, (2) there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award, and (2) there is no evidence upon which the arbitrator could have rejected the Petitioner's claim on its bill bearing No. 212.
(2.) The matter arises out of certain work in connection with the construction of the Bokharo Thermal Plant of the Damodar Valley Project of the Government of India, the Respondent Kuljian Corporation obtained a contract for part of the work there and on October 3, 1950, granted a sub-contract in respect of a portion of it to the Petitioner R.L.E. Cook Ltd. That sub-contract (hereinafter referred to as the contract) provided for what is called progress payments, that is, payments from time to time as the work proceeded, in the manner and at the rates indicated in it. In terms of this provision the Petitioner as it completed parts of the work submitted bills for the work so completed for such amount as was payable in respect thereof under the terms of the progress payment provisions. About April 1952 the Petitioner appears to have erected eight Soot Blowers out of twenty which it had admittedly to erect under the contract and in respect of this work submitted the bill No. 212, dated April 25, 1952, for Rs. 10,388 on account of progress payment. The Respondent paid only half the amount of the bill, that is, Rs. 5,184 contending that under the contract the Petitioner had to erect not only the Soot Blowers but the Soot Blower Pipings as well which it had not done. The Respondent contended that the Soot Blower Pipings were integral parts of the Soot Blowers. The Respondent also contended that the contract specifically required the Petitioner to instal the Soot Blower Pipings. The Petitioner contended that it had no liability under the contract to errect Soot Blower Pipings unless, (1) The Soot Blower Pipings were supplied by Combustion Engineering Superheater Inc. of New York (hereinafter referred to as C.E.S.), (2) The installation of the Soot Blower Pipings was supervised by the engineers of C.E.S., and (3) the work was indicated in the drawings supplied by the Respondents to the Petitioner.
(3.) The Respondent did not dispute that no pipings were furnished by C.E.S. but it denied the other contentions of the Petitioner.;