JEEWAN BUILDERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.9113/1994 in CS(OS) No. 1689A/1994.

(2.) THESE are objections of the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated 19.7.1994 of the Sole Arbitrator. The Award has been passed deciding the disputes which arose between the parties with regard to the work of construction of Asian Games Village complex, Sri Fort, New Delhi -S.H. construction of 126 dwelling units, Phase -III awarded to the petitioner by the respondent. The counsel for the objector has pressed only Claim Nos. 7, 11 and 13 as decided by the Award.

(3.) I am afraid I am unable to accept the contention as raised by the counsel for the objector. Firstly, there is a finding of fact in the present case that there was no Clause 25B inasmuch as the original contract showed that such a slip containing Clause 25B was torn off. Even assuming that this slip containing Clause 25B was there, even then, the pre -condition for the applicability of Clause 25B is that there should be a decision of the Chief Project Engineer. Mr. Narula has not been able to point out to me any decision of Chief Project Engineer with regard to the defective works. Accordingly, once there is no decision of the Chief Project Engineer, there does not arise any question of the same being an excepted matter. In fact, a reading of this portion of the Award shows that the Arbitrator has referred to the fact that the completion certificate issued by the respondent mentioned about certain defective works and did not mention about any other defective works. So far as the defective works as mentioned in the completion certificate are concerned, the Arbitrator has not granted any payment to the contractor but so far as those defective works which are not found mentioned in the completion certificate, the Arbitrator has awarded the payment to the petitioner/contractor/non -objector. By taking the above approach, I do not find that the Arbitrator has in any manner mis -conducted himself or the proceedings. Objection to this claim is therefore dismissed.