PARAS RAM SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent - Delhi Development Authority, against the Award of respondent No. 2 dated 25.9.1996 deciding some of the claims in favour of the petitioner and rejecting the counter claim of the respondent.

(2.) Brief facts are : that the petitioner (contractor) entered into an agreement with the respondent - (DDA) for execution of the work "Development of Rohini Project Phase I upto Madhuban Chowk (2a to 2c) SH Outfall Storm water drain No. 2 alongwith outer Ring Road." The work commenced with effect from 27.11.1988 and was required to be completed on 26.11.1989, but was actually completed on 26.6.1990. After completion of the work, the contractor claimed extra payment for the work executed in or under water and the same was sanctioned by the Competent Authority and conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 16th August, 1990. On 22.3.1995, under clause 25 of the Contract Agreement, the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent were referred to the sole arbitrator, the Super intendant Engineer, DDA. Both the parties filed their respective Claims/Counter claims. On 25.9.96, the arbitrator published the award in favour of the petitioner, awarding Rs. 8,500.00 on account of balance amount towards the final bill (Claim No. 1); Rs. 1.00 lakh on account of security deposit lying with the department (claim No. 2) and Rs. 4,70,244.00 for the work executed in or under sub soil water (claim No. 4 and counter claim No. 1). Interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 28.3.1995 was also awarded. It is a reasoned award.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent - DDA challenged the award regarding claim No. 4 and counter claim No. 1, of Rs. 4,70,244.00 on account of the recovery made by the department in respect of the work executed in or under water. It was argued that the same is totally arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction, as such payment is prohibited by clause 73 of the Additional Specification and Special Conditions for execution of the work. Learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant argued that Clause 73 could have applied if in the schedule of quantities some rates were provided for executing the work in/or under water, It is not so. The schedule of quantities did not provide for any payment for executing the work in/or under water conditions, therefore, Clause 73 does not apply. Alternatively, it was argued that even if the interpretation put on Clause 73 was a possible interpretation, the view taken by the arbitrator cannot be set aside, while considering objection under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.