DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. A S SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order of the learned ADJ whereby the learned ADJ made the award dated 12.07.1993 published by the sole Arbitrator a rule of the Court. By the aforesaid award, the sole Arbitrator allowed the claim of the respondent regarding refund of security deposit to the tune of `51,503: as also the claim of `45,000/- payable to the respondent as per the final bill. The Arbitrator also observed that the reduction item statement issue of the Superintending Engineer was also subject to adjudication by the Arbitrator in view of Clause 14 of the agreement and the statement made by the Superintending Engineer being not a correct statement rejected the claim of the appellant for making certain recoveries from the amount payable to the respondent.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that a petition was filed by the respondent under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short ,,the Act) praying for calling the award published by the Arbitrator on 12.07.1993 on Court file and to make it as rule of the Court. The award was delivered by the Arbitrator in a dispute which arose between the parties in relation to the work awarded to the respondent for construction of ,,Development of Rohini Project Phase-II Section IX, XIII, XIV (Part), DV, XVI, XVIII, XIX and Commercial (Public ? Semi Public Area) Sh.: Road Work in Section IX and XII Part I.

(3.) The Contract awarded to the respondent contained arbitration clause providing for adjudication of the disputes to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the appellant. The appellant appointed Sh. N. Lakshmiah as the sole arbitrator who after entering into the reference made the award in question.