DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. JAGAN NATH ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against decision dated 7th July, 1994 by the learned Single Judge. By the said decision award dated 22nd March, 1991 passed by Shri S.C. Gupta, sole Arbitrator was made rule of the Court after dismissing the objections filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short). Various claims were made by the respondent/Contractor before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave its award dated 22nd March, 1991 allowing some of these claims to some extent and dismissed all the counter claims of DDA. The award was filed in this Court. IA 1279/91 was filed by the Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar 759 respondent/Contractor for making it rule of the Court whereas IA. 1280/91 was filed by the applicant which contained objections to the aforesaid award. Objections were preferred in respect of additional claim no.1 and claim no.2, claim no.4, 8 and additional claim no.3 and in respect of counter claims. As noted above, all these objections were rejected by the learned Single Judge and award was made rule of the Court and it was directed that decree be prepared in terms thereof. Interest @ 12% p.a. from date of award till payment was also granted.

(2.) In this appeal which is preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 7th July, 1994, the grievance was limited to claim nos 2,4, additional claim no.3 and counter claim nos. 1 and 5. However, at the time of argument Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA pressed her objections only in respect of the award relating to claim no.2, additional claim no.3 and counter claim no.1. Therefore, we proceed to examine the legality of the impugned judgment only in respect of these claims.

(3.) Claim no.2 was preferred by respondent/Contractor before the Arbitrator which related to work done beyond the deviation limit provided in the contract. There is no dispute that as per the Agreement there could be deviation to the extent of -or+ 20% of the work. However, if the work ultimately undertaken by the Contractor extended the deviation limit, as per clause 12-A of the Agreement he became entitled to a higher rate. There is no dispute that the work done by the Contractor was beyond the deviation limit provided in the contract. In such an eventuality the respondent was entitled to claim revision of rates supported by proper analysis in respect of such items for quantities in excess of deviation limit. However, as per clause 12-A of the Agreement respondent had to claim the deviation and submit proper analysis within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. On submission of these rates and analysis in support thereof Engineer-in-charge could revise the rates having regard to the prevailing market rates. For proper appreciation of clause 12-A is reproduced below:- Clause 12A:-