VIKASH ENGINEERING CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Agreement NO.59/HD XI/A/82-83 was entered into between the parties as per which the petitioner was awarded work relating to the construction of 20 cat III (duplex type) 40 cat II flats under SPS at Kalkaji, New Delhi, Opp.Hr.Sec.School. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to execution of the aforesaid work, Mr.S.Nagarajan was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the said disputes and make his award- The learned Arbitrator adjudicated upon the disputes referred to him and made and published his award dated 20/06/1995. It is a speaking award running into twenty three pages. The said award along with the proceedings was filed in this court. When the DDA was served with the notice of filing of the award, it filed this IA which contains objections to the award. Reply to the objections are filed and following issues were framed on 9/01/1998 1. Whether the award dated 28/06/1995 is liable to be set aside in respect of claim No.I. Claim No. 2.3.3. (a) , 2.3.3.(b), 2.3.3.(c)(i), (c) (ii), (c) (iii), 2.3.3.(d). 2.3.3.(f) Claim No.3, Claim No,4 & counter claim No.l on the grounds noted in the objection petition (I.A. No-148/97)? 2. Whether the objections are beyond the scope of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act as alleged in para No-1 of the preliminary objections of the reply. 3. Relief.

(2.) Both the parties made the statement that record of the arbitration proceedings be read in evidence and they do not wish to file any affidavit/counter affidavit. The matter was accordingly heard with reference to the arbitration proceedings.

(3.) Claim No.l preferred by the petitioner was for refund of the security of Rs.1 lac deposited by the petitioner with the DDA, Admittedly even as per the respondent the work was declared complete on 28/08/1986. Therefore, the Arbitrator rightly held that the petitioner became entitled to the refund of this security by 27/02/1987 after the lapse of six months time from the date of completion of the work. Counsel for the respondent could not point out as to how such an award on claim No.1 was improper. In the objections it is alleged that certain defects remained in the work which were not rectified by the petitioner despite notice and the Arbitrator ignored this aspect. However this is factually incorrect as para 1.3.5 of the award would show that couple of items got done belatedly by the DDA through their agents were not defect rectification work but the minor original it items allegedly not done by the claimants. For such items no payments were made to the petitioner by the DDA. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid reasoning. This objection is therefore without any merit.