- (1.) The Civil Revision No.247 of 2004 is against an order passed by the appellate Court in an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration award which was made the rule of Court admitting of some claim by the Contractor against the respondent allowed, inter alia, a claim for Rs. 2,50,000/-towards damages for prolongation of contract period and Rs. 4 lakhs towards extra expenditure towards procurement of materials in the appeal filed by the respondents. The appellate authority set aside the decree which was passed in terms of the award by the first Court on a singular consideration that the claims awarded by the Arbitrator that were made rule of the Court were contrary to an express clause in the general conditions of contract which was as under:- "The Contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation for any loss suffered by him on account of delays in commencing or executing the work, whatever, the cause of delays arising out of modifications to the work entrusted to him or in delivering to him the drawings, details, specifications etc. of any kind or in any sub-contract connected therewith or delays in awarding contracts for other traders of the project or in commencement or completion of such works or in producing Govt. Controlled materials to be supplied by the MARKFED or in obtaining water and power connection for construction purposes, or for any other reason whatsoever and thereof. The Employer does not accept liability for any such besides the tender amount, subject to such variations as are provided herein."
(2.) By reading the same provision, the extra expenditure on procurement of materials as awarded by the first Court was also set aside. The revision petition has been filed by the Contractor against the modification made by the appellate Court. The respondent has come up with his own revision in Civil Revision No.3273 of 2004 against the award by the courts below as regards the other heads accepted by the Court of first instance and also affirmed in the appellate Court.
(3.) As regards the damages for prolongation of contract period which was awarded at Rs. 2,50,000/-, if we read through Clause No.22, which we have extracted above, it admits of no ambiguity at all, that the parties were specifically providing for immunity to the employer for a damage that resulted from delays in commencement or execution of the work. The appellate Court, in my view, therefore, was justified in holding that the Arbitrator misconducted himself rendering an adjudication which was contracted by the party as not amenable for raising a dispute. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the appellate in that regard.;