PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are not in dispute. An Award was published wherein two claims were partly allowed, one was fully allowed and two were rejected. Out of a total claim of Rs. 8.79.085.00 a sum of Rs. 2,11,820.61 was granted by the Arbitrator. The 1st claim was for Rs. 2,94,309.00 as the amount due in the Final Bill, towards work done but not paid. The finding was that this was partly justified to the extent of Rs. 1,20,775.25. The next was for the refund of the Security Deposit of Rs. 84.776.00 which was found to be fully justified. The third claim for Rs. 5,00,000.00 , towards damages for work executed beyond the stipulated date of completion was rejected as being unjustified The fourth claim for Rs.2,00,000.00 under Clause 10-C, was held to be partly justified to the extent of Rs. 6,279.36. And the final claim was on account of pendente lite interest, which was fully disallowed. Three Counter Claims were also filed.

(2.) Both parties have filed Objections, IA No. 1344/90 being those of the Petitioner- Contractor. At the hearing before me, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Contractor made a statement that he was restricting his challenge only to the last Claim, wherein pendente lite interest had been rejected by the Arbitrator. Subsequent to the initial delay in filing the Objection being condoned in favour of the Contractor, 1.A. No. 11637/98 was filed on its behalf, for amendment of the Objection Petition No. 1344/ 89, so as to incorporate the grounds of misconduct for disallowing the claim for pendente lite interest.

(3.) The findings of the Learned Arbitrator in this context are succinct and are spelled out in the following two sentences: