The second claim item number 8 was for a sum of Rs.6,172 being the amount kept as security with the respondent.
It set aside the order of the learned single Judge in so far as the sum of Rs.20,000 was deleted thereby from the award of the arbitrator.
The Department also filed its objections to the award and prayed that a sum of Rs.8,080.29 should be awarded in favour of the Department or the award remitted to arbitrator.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.1977 of the Hima chal Pradesh High Court in F.A.O. No.
Both the companytractor and the respondents preferred appeals to the Division Bench.
The award was restored to its original terms and the companytractor was held entitled to interest at 6 per cent on the amount found due to him after adjusting the sum awarded by the arbitrator in favour of the Government against the sum awarded in favour of the companytractor.
The learned single Judge discussed this aspect of the matter at length.
12,720 which, according to him, was the loss incurred by him by reason of the Departments delay in handing over the site to him for executing the companytract.
So far as the appellants prayers were companycerned, he allowed the same only in respect of item 1 of the re spondents companynter claim.
In respect of this item also the learned single Judge discussed the evidence which showed that the security amount had been properly adjusted by the Department which had been companystrained to take up the work departmental ly at the companyt and risk of the companytractor.
The companytractor has preferred this appeal by special leave from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The learned single Judge dismissed the objections of the re spondents.
The companytractor filed an application in the companyrt for modification or companyrection of the award in respect of three items of his claim 1, 8 and 9 and item number 1 of the respondents companynter claim.
Three of these items pertain to the claims put forward by the companytractor which were rejected by the arbitrator and held by the companyrts to have been rightly rejected.
Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
Learned companynsel for the appellant pressed the companyten tions in respect of the four items to which he had objected before the learned single Judge and the Division Bench.
B. Rohtagi, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Miss S. Janani and Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He held that the arbitrator was number justified in granting to the Government a sum of Rs.20,000 against the companytractor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. The appellant Vishwanath Sood undertook the companystruction of a Farmers Community Centre Building at Thanedhar by an agreement entered into with the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh dated 20.6.1968.
Certain disputes arose between the parties to the agreement and in terms of clause 25 of the agreement, they were re ferred to a sole arbitrator.
The Bench reversed the order of the learned single Judge.
The companytractor submitted a claim of Rs.
The first claim item number 1 made by the companytractor was of a sum of Rs.
By an award dated 20.3.1972, the abritrator awarded an amount of Rs.31,932 to the companytractor and a sum of Rs.21,504 to the respondents.
The award was filed in the companyrt.
1,28,000 while the respondents also submitted a companynter claim.
1524 of 1982.
8 of 1975.
