A. K. Sikri ( 1 ) SOME disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondents which were REFERRED TO to Brig. T. K. Mittal appointed as sole arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator entered upon reference. After receiving the claims and counter-claims of the parties and adjudicated upon the same he made and published his award dated 18/11/1999. The petitioner, thereafter, filed application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration act, 1940 (for short act ) for making the aforesaid award as rule of the court which was registered as Suit no. 2833 of 1999 and the arbitrator was directed to file the award. On arbitrator s filing the award, notice thereof was issued to both the parties. The respondents filed objections to this award under section 30 and 33 of the Act which are registered as IA no. 8909/2000. ( 2 ) MR. SAMEER Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pressed objections in respect of the award on claims No. 2,4, 5, 8, 12 and 14. ( 3 ) IN so far as claim No. 2 is concerned, this claim was made by the petitioner on account of losses/damages caused due to non-handing over of the sites in dust free condition as technically required and due to delay in completion of the building by the other agency. The arbitrator has awarded this claim to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs holding that non-handing over of unencumbered sites is established, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. It is further stated that the contention of the respondents to the effect that Clause 11 (C) forbids any compensation is not correct as that is applicable to reasons covered by Clauses 11 (A) and (B ). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by awarding the aforesaid claim, the arbitrator has acted contrary to the provisions of Clause 11 (C) inasmuch as the site was not handed over due to the fact that other agency was constructing the building, and therefore, delay was in completion of the building. This is admitted by the petitioner himself and the claim is founded on this basis. This is admitted by the petitioner himself and the claim is founded on this basis. In these circumstances, it was the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, that Clause ll (A) (vi) gets attracted which reads as under: "that by reasons of delay on the part of the contractors or tradesman engaged by government in executing works not forming part of the contract. " ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is formidable. The arbitrator has simply stated that this case is not covered by Clauses 11 (A) and (B) without giving any further reason as to how it is no so covered, particularly in the face of Clause ll (A) (vi) which specifically stipulates that the reason for delay on the part of the tradesman engaged by government in executing works not forming part of the contract. This is when the delay in handing over of the site was on account of delay in completion of the building by other agency. As admitted by the petitioner himself, the case is clearly covered by clause 11 (A) (vi) and in these circumstances. Clause 11 (C) forbids any compensation payable on this account. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, namely, Union Of India vs. M/s Om construction Company reported in 1997 (2) PLR 92 is clearly attracted on the facts of this case. That was also a case were the court was interpreting the same clauses of the contract and it was held that in view of clause 11 (C) no such claim was payable. It may be mentioned that same view was taken by the Punjab and haryana High Court after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court as per which the arbitrator is bound by the provisions of the contract. The award in respect of claim No. 2 is therefore not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. ( 5 ) IN so far claim No. 4 is concerned, it was on account of extra expenditure caused by MES due to withholding the issue of completion certificate. For same reasons, as mentioned in respect of claim No. 2, this claim is also not maintainable as the arbitrator himself recorded that the contractor was denied electricity and water in addition to some systems to be completed by the third agency which had not been completed. For same reasons, as mentioned in respect of claim No. 2, this claim is also not maintainable as the arbitrator himself recorded that the contractor was denied electricity and water in addition to some systems to be completed by the third agency which had not been completed. Award on this claim is also set aside. ( 6 ) AS far as claim No. 5 is concerned, the arbitrator has granted interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for delayed payment of running bills i. e. RARs. The arbitrator has mentioned that the payments were to be made within thirty days which he considered as reasonable period. As the payments were delayed, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for delayed payments is allowed. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that nowhere in the contract it is provided that the payment is to be made within fifteen days. This was countered by learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Clause 64 of the contract as per which the running bills were to be submitted at intervals of not less than thirty days. His submission was that when the next bill becomes due after thirty days, it is expected that the payment of the last bill would be released before that, and therefore, the arbitrator was justified in inferring that the fifteen days period within which the payment is to be made, is reasonable. This view drawn by the arbitrator based on Clause 64 of the contract is a possible one, and therefore, this court would not substitute it s own view even if the other view is possible. Thus, I do not find any merit in this objection and is rejected. ( 7 ) CLAIM No. 8 is again on account of payment of interest on delayed payment against RARs. and final bill. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents was two-folds; A. On delayed payment interest has already been awarded under claim No. 5 which records that the interest is on account of all the RARs. b. In so far as interest on final bill is concerned, it was submitted that as per Clause 66, the payment was to be made within six months. b. In so far as interest on final bill is concerned, it was submitted that as per Clause 66, the payment was to be made within six months. Final bill was signed by the petitioner on 12/09/1991 and the payment was made on 18/03/1992 i. e. within six months and therefore, no interest was payable. In view of these objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded the position and submitted that he had no objection if the award on this account is set aside. Accordingly, award of interest against claim No. 8 is set aside. ( 8 ) AGAINST claim No. 12, the arbitrator has awarded Rs. 20,000. 00 which was recovered by the respondents on acoount of alleged defects. As per clause 44 of the contract, if there are any defects, the respondents were permitted to make the recoveries and get the defects removed at the risk and cost of the contractor. However, the respondents could not show as to any such amount was spent, after making the recoveries, at the risk and cost of the petitioner and it is for this reason, the arbitrator awarded this claim. I do not find anything in awarding any such claim as during the course of arguments also, learned counsel was not able to substantiate as to how the arbitrator was wrong in observing that the petitioner could not prove the disposal of this money. ( 9 ) AGAINST claim No. 14, interest is awarded by the arbitrator in respect of claims 1 to 13 less claims 2, 5 and 8. This objection of the respondents was only in respect of interest on claim No. 4. Since claim No. 4 itself is set aside, no interest thereon is payable. ( 10 ) THE award as modified above is made rule of the court. Decree shall follow. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till payment. Suit and IA stand disposed of.