JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.(Oral): A contract agreement bearing No.l4/EE/88-89 for construction of Type-Ill, 8 Nos. General Pool Accommodation at Phagli, Shimla including development of site was executed .between Sh. V.K. Sood, claimant-contractor and for and on behalf of President of India by the Executive Engineer, Shimla Central Division CPWD, Shimla. The total tendered amount was to the tone of Rs.9,71,498/-. The date of start in the contract agreement was 5.9.1988 and completion was 4.11.1989 2. After the observance of the codal formalities the claimant- contractor was required to start the work within ten days after the date of allotment thereof, which in the present case was allotted vide a letter dated 25.8.1988 meaning thereby that the plaintiff had to start the work w.e.f. 4/5thSeptember,1988. 3. As per the condition of the contract, standard designs for the work was to be submitted by the claimant-contractor and one submitted by him was not adequate as per the standard practice/codal requirements as submitted in the agreement. The design submitted by him was received back from the Surveyor of work, Chandigarh Central Circle, CPWD, Chandigarh and thereafter it was returned to him with the direction to resubmit the same, but he did not do so. In these circumstances, the department was left with no other option but to design the buildings and issued the detailed structure designs in the interest of work. However, due to heavy rain and snowfall during the month of November,1988, some trees had been uprooted and fell down on the site of the work and to remove the same, the Union of India had to seek the permission of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Thus the claimant was informed to deploy some other item of work of the same contract. The .site after removal of trees etc. was cleared on 30.8.1989. Inspite of the directions of the department, the contractor failed to re-start the work. Moreover, inspite of the best cooperation and assistance rendered by the officials of the Union of India, yet the claimant-contractor failed to progress the work so much so that it was so poor and far from satisfactory right from the very beginning. In order to accelerate the progress of the work, the Union of India issued the show cause notice through the concerned officer vide letters dated 11.12.1989, 4.8.1990. In order to accelerate the progress of the work, the Union of India issued the show cause notice through the concerned officer vide letters dated 11.12.1989, 4.8.1990. 19.11.1990, 1.6.1991 and 17.7.1991, but even on this the claimant-contractor failed to discharge his contractual liability and failed to progress the execution of work as per this period of contract agreement. In the circumstances the Union of India was left with no other option but to resort Clause-3 of the agreement and thus on 7.3.l992, the contract was rescinded and the remaining work at the site was decided to be executed as per the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. The balance work left unexecuted at the site was executed through Shri Chander Shekhat, Government Contractor and after working out the difference of value of balance work, a sum-of Rs.5,96,902/- was left for the completion of the said work through some other Agency. 4. Thereafter, the claimant-contractor submitted his final bill of Rs.55,000/-. When it was examined, it transpired after carrying out necessary adjustment, a sum of Rs. 1,10,548/- had become sic and recoverable from him. He, however, claimed certain payments on various counts and this has resulted in a dispute between the parties. Consequently, on the request of the Chief Engineer (North Zone), the plaintiff vide his letter dated 25.5.1993 appointed one Sh V. Nainani as an Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties by giving reasons in support of his findings on each and every claims/counter-claims. 5. The said Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 31.5,1993 and during the course of the proceedings before him; both the parties were given opportunities to prefer their claims/counter-claims. The Union of India in its counter-claim, claimed a sum of Rs. 1.10,548/- on account of adjustment of pre-final bill of the claimant and a sum of Rs.5,96,209/- on account of difference value of balance work executed by them through another agency, at the risk and cost of the claimant as per. Clause 3 of the contract agreement. 6. The Arbitrator through the impugned award dated 27.10 1994 awarded a sum of Rs.23,516/- besides tile F.D. Rs amounting to Rs.36.000/-against the total amount claimed by the contractor to the tune of Rs.3,32000/-. Clause 3 of the contract agreement. 6. The Arbitrator through the impugned award dated 27.10 1994 awarded a sum of Rs.23,516/- besides tile F.D. Rs amounting to Rs.36.000/-against the total amount claimed by the contractor to the tune of Rs.3,32000/-. The counter claims of the Union of India have been completely ignored as per their cause in the objection petition, and against the total amount to the tune of Rs.6,48,498/-, nothing was awarded to them. 7. The Arbitrator vide a covering letter No ARB/VN/768 dated 8.12.1994 sent the award along with the relevant file to this Court for being made rule of the Court. After the same was received, notices were issued to both the parties. They came present and the Union of India filed its objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be called as the Act). Thereafter the claimant-contractor filed his reply and subsequently the objector filed replication. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by an order of this Court dated 17.11.1995. "1. Whether the objections have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation? OPD. 2. Whether the objections do not disclose any legal ground for setting aside the award as alleged, If to, its effect? OPO. 3. Whether the award ii without jurisdiction, at the arbitrator has travelled out of the of the agreement as alleged. If so, its effect? OPO. 4. Whether the arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings as alleged? OPO. 5. Relief." 9. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties i.e. Sh. J.S. Bhogal appearing on behalf of the claimant-contractor and Sh. P.A. Sharma, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the objector. I have also gone through the arbitration file and the record of this case. My findings issue-wise are as under:-: Issue No. I. This issue was not pressed at the time of argument’s. Even sic the limitation was to run from the date of the service of notice from the Court to the parties concerned, not from the date of the filing of the award in the Court Thus computed the objections are within time. This issue is decided accordingly. Issues No.2,3 and 4. These three issues are inter-connected and are thus being disposed of together. In support of his objections, Sh. This issue is decided accordingly. Issues No.2,3 and 4. These three issues are inter-connected and are thus being disposed of together. In support of his objections, Sh. P.A. Sharma, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned award deserves to be set aside, inter alia, on the grounds that while making the same, them Arbitrator has acted arbitrarily, capriciously etc. He has gone beyond the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. Thereby he has awarded an» amount of Rs.23,516/- besides release of F.D. Rs for an amount of Rs.36.000/-to the claimant-contractor but has ignored the counter-claim and the objector claimed Rs.6,48.498/-. Objections have been raised on merits regarding various claims as adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator and it has also been specifically pleaded in the objection petition that the Arbitrator failed to give any reason as required as per the terms and conditions of the reference which were brought to the notice through the letter appointing him. Moreover, the claim was more than Rs.75,000/-, therefore, it was incumbent sic to have give reasons to secure. He rejected the counter claim of the objector. He has thus mis-con ducted himself and the proceedings. 10. In the reply filed by the claimant-contractor, it has been pleaded that the objections go to the merits of the case and as per settled law, the same cannot be taken not of and ihe award cannot be set aside on that ground. It has been specifically pleaded that the Arbitrator has considered the counter-claim of the objector and has given the reasons for rejecting the same claims of the plaintiff to the extent that he has done as clear from the perusal of the award. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, fit length, and going though the impugned award as well as the record of the proceedings, I find that the award does not suffer from any illegality. As is clear from the reading of the impugned award, the objector did not issue the required quantity of 10mm and 16mm dia re-enforcement bars for the work in question. Meanwhile, one Deodar tree fell on the erected column for removal of which again permission from the Forest Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh had to be obtained. As is clear from the reading of the impugned award, the objector did not issue the required quantity of 10mm and 16mm dia re-enforcement bars for the work in question. Meanwhile, one Deodar tree fell on the erected column for removal of which again permission from the Forest Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh had to be obtained. The claimant in fact evidenced that the said tree was removed by the respondent only on 11.3.1993 long after the contract was rescinded by him. The claimant also suspended the work and the objection belatedly rescinded the work on 7.3.92 against show cause notices issued on 19.11.1990,1.6.1991 and 177.1991 respectively. 12. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Arbitrator had come to the conclusion that there was lack of earnestness on the part of both the parties in performing their obligations under the contract and thus the contract was unnecessarily and inordinately prolonged beyond the stipulated date of the contract agreement. He was thus of the view that the contract between the parties had ceased to exist by efflux of time and thus both the panic should bear their own damages if suffered as a result of giving up of contract by them. Thus resultantly, no penal actions under Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement subsist again it the claimant. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for any recovery on account of non submission of structural drawings by him and also the claim. Nos.3, 4 and 5 on account of damages for prolongation, non-availability of full site, approval of design, anticipated profits etc. do not subsist. Accordingly, he is entitled to refund of S.D. amounting to Rs.44,701/- recovered from his bills up to 5th running account bill for performance of contract. The S.D. is admittedly available with the respondent as Rs.36.000/- in form of FDRa and Rs.2701/- in form of cash. The claimant was further entitled to be paid for the value of work done less recoveries as admissible to the respondent determined by the Arbitrator. The details of the same have been given in the impugned award. Hence he has awarded Rs23,516/-to the claimant against these claims and counter-claims. He has also been held to release FD Rs for the total amount of Rs.36.000/- available with the respondent. 13. The details of the same have been given in the impugned award. Hence he has awarded Rs23,516/-to the claimant against these claims and counter-claims. He has also been held to release FD Rs for the total amount of Rs.36.000/- available with the respondent. 13. It is thus clear from die impugned award that the same is supported by reasons and the findings of (he learned-Arbitrator that since both the parties showed lack of performing their obligations under die contract and it was in ordinarily prolonged between the starting date of the agreement and therefore contract between them had ceased to exist by efflux of time and hence both o them should bear damages, as unexceptionable on the facts and circumstances of the case as gleaned from the record. Moreover, the findings given by the Arbitrator are sic findings on merits and cannot be gone into as per settled law. It has been enunciated right up to the Apex Court. At the cost of repetition, it Deeds to be stressed that the award of the Arbitrator under the Act can only be set aside if he travels beyond the reference, the agreement between the parties, or his findings are based on perverse reasons. Consequently by no stretch of imagination he car. be said to have mis-conducted himself and the proceedings before him. None of these effects has been caused in the present case so as to warrant interference with the impugned award. 14, In fairness, Sh. P.A Sharma, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has cited a case Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1989 Supreme Court 952. It has been held that non- speaking award conclusions reached by Arbitrator after considering material placed before him, no error on the face of award having been made out, the affirmation of award by the High Court without interference was proper. This authority cannot render help to the case of the objector. The reason for this is that as per the terms of the reference the impugned award is a speaking award containing reasons which do not suffer from any error so as to call for interference. 15. No other point has been urged. This authority cannot render help to the case of the objector. The reason for this is that as per the terms of the reference the impugned award is a speaking award containing reasons which do not suffer from any error so as to call for interference. 15. No other point has been urged. Consequently I would hold that the objections do not disclose any legal ground for setting aside the award, the same is not without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Arbitrator has not travelled out of the scope of the agreement and lastly the Arbitrator has not misconducted himself and the proceedings on the facts and circumstances of the case, as made out from the record. Issues No.2,3 and 4 are decided accordingly. Issue So.5. For the reasons recorded above, the objections filed by the Union of India are dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The award of the Arbitrator herein is made a rule of the Court. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. -