K.Ramamoorthy - (1.)The construction of Community Shopping No. 5 in Sector VII, Rohini Phase I was a subject matter of contract between M/s. S.S. Jain & Co. (hereinafter called the contractor) and the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the respondent). Dispute arose between the parties and as per the provisions in the contract, they were referred for arbitration to Shri R.K. Sundaram, Chief Engineer (Retd.). The Arbitrator passed the award on 14.1.91. The contractor filed a Suit No. 41 IA/91 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award rule of the Court. The respondent filed IA 9302/91 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award. In the petition, it js stated by the respondent that the agreement was executed on 12.5.86. The date of commencement of the work was fixed as 16.5.1986. The work was to be completed within four months. The contractor did not complete the work and consequently by letter dated 31.5.88, the respondent rescinded the contract. Inspite of it, the contractor had come forward with claims and that was considered by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has not considered the breach committed by the contractor, Therefore, according to the respondent, the award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
(2.)Claim No. 1 relates to the refund of security deposit to the extent of Rs. 62.000.00 . The Arbitrator as against the above claim, awarded a sum of Rs. 49,865.00 to be refunded by the respondent.
(3.)The objection by the respondent on Claim No. 1 is that the finding given by the Arbitrator that the rescission of the contract was not in accordance with law. The Arbitrator has not properly appreciated the allegations levelled against the respondent by the contractor in its letters marked as Exs. C-1 - C-11. Those Exhibits are the measurement books, site order books etc. which would show how the work progressed and how the contractor did not do the work in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Arbitrator failed to note that the security deposit was liable to be forfeited inspite of the contractor not fulfilling his obligations under the contract. On31.10.87(Ex. R-1), the respondent gave notice to the contractor to speed up the work and complete the same with out any delay. The Arbitrator had ignored a crucial fact that the contractor did not have the required resources and the capacity to complete the work which had undertaken. The Arbitrator came to an erroneous conclusion that the rescission of the contract was unjustified.