- (1.) The appellant-Markfed is against the order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Objecting Court, whereby the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after called 'the 1996 Act') for setting aside the Award dated 12.04.2006 have been dismissed. Mr. Saurabh Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Markfed submits that the Clause 13 of the Contract envisaged the imposition of the penalty of 1% subject to the total value of the contract per week of delay subject to maximum of 10% of the contract value. The Arbitrator has not noticed the fact that the contractor has failed to complete the construction work and, therefore, penalty of 10% was imposed, whereas he reduced it to 1% by assigning the reasons which are contrary to the record, much less, terms and conditions of the contract.
(2.) Mr. P.S. Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the order. The objections were not within the purview of Section 34 of the Act and rightly so, the Objecting Court has dismissed the same.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Clause 13 of the Contract reads thus: "13. In case the contractor fails to complete the work within the prescribed time limit as per contract, Markfed shall be at liberty to levy penalty 1% (one percent) of the total value of the contract per week of delay subject to maximum of 10% of contract value. The clause of liquidity damages shall be applicable after the expiry of the construction time limit. That admittedly, respondent No.1-Contractor failed to complete the construction of the godown within the prescribed time limit and despite the fact that respondent No.2(sole arbitrator) had come to this conclusion, decided to travel beyond the terms of the contract and accepted the claim filed by respondent No.1".;