BHAI SARDAR SINGH AND SONS NEW DELHI Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER:

(2.) THE plaintiff Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons (in short Contractor) was awarded the work "construction of types I, II and III Teachers Housing Complex at Lodhi Colony" pursuant to invitation of tenders. Originally, the contractor quoted rates at 46% above the CPWD schedule of rates 1967 subject to certain conditions but later on he submitted revised tender at 55.55% instead of 46% above the CPWD schedule of rates 1967. This tender was duly accepted by the respondent-Committee vide resolution No. 18 dated 15th January, 1971. Subsequently, a formal agreement evidencing the contract was entered into between the parties on 22nd February, 1971. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties wish regard to the execution/implementation of the construction work, the same were referred by the respondent-Committee to the sole arbitration of Shri M. K. Nayyar respondent No. 2; who was Financial Advisor to Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India and ex-officio member of the respondent-Committee vide letter dated 24th of March, 1972. THE Arbitrator entered upon reference and in due course the contractor submitted his statement of claim while the respondent filed a counter-statement of facts. Hearing before the arbitrator concluded on 22nd May, 1973 and the award was reserved. However, the contractor vide letter dated 5th June, 1973 followed by letter dated 3rd July, 1973 requested the arbitrator to inspect the site and see the work for himself in order to appraise the evidence in proper perspective and decide the claim of the contractor. However, it appears that the arbitrator passed no order on the same. Eventually, the arbitrator made and pronounced his award on 18th July, 1973. THE contractor moved an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for filing of the award. Accordingly, on the direction of the Court, the arbitrator filed the award. On notice of the same having been served on the parties, the contractor has filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, being I. A. No. 3060/73.

(3.) HOWEVER, having regarding to the admitted position that the contract/ agreement between the parties under which the construction work was awarded to the petitioner-contractor was not produced before the arbitrator, this reply is absolutely meaningless and the fact remains that the arbitrator did not go through the contract/agreement in question at all before giving the award. It may be pertinent to add here that the entire record of arbitration proceedings was sent to the Local Commissioner along with the interrogatories as would appear from the office letter dated 23rd August, 1976 addressed to the Registrar, Small Cause Court, Madras. Evidently, therefore, the arbitrator would have laid his hand upon the contract/agreement in question, had the same or its copy been produced before him.