[ad_1]
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner for setting
aside the Arbitral Award dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator/respondent no.2.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as averred in the present
petition, are that the petitioner is the Union of India, Ministry of
Railways, Northern Railways, New Delhi and engaged in the
activities of providing the transportation services for carriage of
the passengers and goods by way of rolling stock. On 24.05.2011,
the petitioner had awarded a contract to respondent no.1 for
carrying out the work of ‘Improvement to Level Crossing
including road repair construction of boundary wall etc. between
NO-TPZ Under ADEN/SMQL’ to be completed within a period
of six months i.e. upto 23.11.2011. It has been averred that
though respondent no.1 alleged in the claim petition before the ld.
Sole Arbitrator that the work could not be completed by
respondent no.1 as neither the work site was handed over nor the
requisite instructions were given to respondent no.1 by the
petitioner for the execution of the work however, the same is
contrary to the applications/letters (documents) of respondent
no.1 to the petitioner seeking grant of extension of time to
complete the work due to his own fault and negligence i.e.
shortage of skilled labour and non-availability of goods material
within the stipulated period of six months/extended period. It has
been further averred that respondent no.1 sought three extensions
for completion of work vide letters dated 13.01.2012, 15.06.2012
and 09.03.2013 i.e. on 13.01.2012 and 15.06.2012 on account of
heavy rain, shortage of skilled labour and non-availability of
goods material and third time due to heavy rain and ban on
mining and the petitioner granted first extension vide letter dated
22.02.2012 to respondent no.1 for completion of work upto
31.05.2012 with a token penalty of Rs.5,000/- and second
extension was granted vide letter dated 26.06.20112 for
completion of work till 31.10.2012 and third extension was
granted by the petitioner to respondent no.1 for completion of
work upto 30.06.2013 with a token penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under
clause 17(b) of General Condition of Contract 1999. It has been
further averred that respondent no.1 was not sincere and
negligent towards the completion of the work against to him and
the petitioner had served several letters dated 08.02.2012,
09.05.2012, 26.02.2012, 05/-07.12.2012 and 11.02.2014 to
respondent no.1 asking to deploy sufficient labour and resources
to expedite the progress of the work immediately. It has been
further averred that despite the same, respondent no.1 failed to
complete the work and completed upto 40% of work and
thereafter, respondent no.1 never resumed/restarted to carry out
the remaining work till the termination of the contract. It has been
further averred that even after the expiry of the extended period
to complete the work, the petitioner provided sufficient
opportunities to respondent no.1 to complete the remaining work
but respondent no.1 failed to avail the opportunities and thus,
respondent no.1 has no right to claim refund/release of earnest
money and performance guarantee/security deposit from the
petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the contract and the
petitioner has correctly forfeited the aforesaid amount. It has been
further averred that respondent no.1 has already taken the entire
payment from the petitioner in respect of the quantum of the
work executed by him and at present no amount is
outstanding/payable by the petitioner to respondent no.1.
[ad_2]
Source link