M.L. MAHAJAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above appeals are directed against the order dated 4th April, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DDA") against the award dated 22nd May, 1992 published by Mr. M.S. Telang, sole Arbitrator, have been disposed of; claim Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 and counter claims 1 to 4 have been made a Rule of the Court whereas claim No. 6 has been set aside.

(2.) In brief, relevant facts are that Mr. M.L. Mahajan (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) was awarded a work for the construction of 926 janta category flats at Ghazipur by the DDA. As per the contract, the construction work was to commence on 12th August, 1982 and was to be completed within a period of one year i.e. by 11th August, 1983. The work could not be completed in time by the contractor; accordingly, Superintending Engineer, DDA levied compensation on the contractor in terms of clause II of the contract alleging failure on the part of the contractor to complete the work. Consequently, disputes arose between the parties and were referred to the Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause as contained in the agreement.

(3.) Contractor raised eight claims besides the cost of arbitration. DDA also raised four counter claims. Claim No. 1 for Rs.2,85,792/- was towards the final bill which included payments under Clause 10 (c) of the contract, regarding statutory increase in the price of bricks and wages of labour. The Arbitrator awarded Rs.1,72,349.64 against this claim. Claim No. 2 in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was towards the refund of security deposit. Claim No. 3 for Rs. 5,635/- was regarding refund of rebate wrongly deducted by the DDA. Both these amounts were allowed by the Arbitrator in toto. Claim No. 4 in the sum of Rs.73,000/- was in respect of fixation of PVC pipes of a larger diameter than the one provided under the agreement. Against this claim, Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.66,815.89. Claim No. 6 for Rs.7,23,000/- was towards escalation of work done beyond the stipulated date of completion; Arbitrator had awarded Rs.2,89,586.79 against this claim. Claim No. 7 for Rs.2,85,000/- was towards overheads on account of site office and watch and ward during the prolonged period of the contract. The Arbitrator awarded Rs.1,96,200/- against this claim. Claim No. 8 was towards pendente lite interest which was allowed for the period as mentioned in the award @ 12 % simple interest per annum. Counter claims of Rs.53,352/- and Rs.1,88,363/- towards levy of compensation and damages respectively on account of execution of balance work and rectification of defective works were negated. Counter claim No. 3 for Rs.1,69,769/- on account of reduction in items was allowed to the extent of Rs.72,979.32 but nil award was awarded as this amount was given an adjustment while determining claim No. 1. Similarly, counter claim No. 4 for Rs.1,62,791/- was allowed to the extent of Rs.12,124/- on account of recovery of materials issued but having remained unaccounted for, beyond the permissible limit, a nil award was awarded as this amount was also given an adjustment in claim No. 1.