confirmation letters issued by the Petitioners themselves to the Respondent. After taking into account payment made by the Petitioners to the Respondent towards the contract work and referring to the testimony of the Petitioners’ witnesses, the arbitrator accepted the Respondent’s case on the outstanding amount of its bill. The arbitrator noticed that though the Petitioners had gone to the extent of even denying the legitimate claim of the contractor for work done, their own witness, Abhay Parab, Senior Manager, Accounts, who had honestly accepted the receipt of the letter along the statement of account disclosing the entire outstandings, could not depose anything about the contents of the letter. He feigned ignorance about whether even a reply was sent to the Respondent contractor by the Petitioners. So far as the balance payable to the Respondent was concerned, the witness gave evasive answers. His answers mostly were “I am not aware” or “I do not know”. The arbitrator noticed that the other key witness of the Petitioners, one Aarti Sharma, simply denied each and every fact stated by the Respondent’s witnesses but she had no personal knowledge and was not concerned with the field work. The arbitrator was of the view that she could not vouch for the tiling or plaster work done by the Respondent contractor. The arbitrator noticed that none of the personnel, who were directly concerned with the project, and were associated with the project site, was examined by the Petitioners either on quality of work or on the measurements. The arbitrator also noticed various pre-varifications in the Petitioners’ case. At the end of a long discussion of these matters, the arbitrator rendered his findings and held that the Respondent contractor had proved its claim and was entitled to receive Rs.40,95,217.75
