OM AND COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award rule of the Court. Award was made on 24.9.1994 by Mr. R C Malhotra, who was Superintending Engineer of the respondent. Objections have been filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Basically, the objections have been filed against Claim nos. 1, 3 and 9.

(2.) It is contended before me by Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that the award is in excess of the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and, therefore, same may be set aside. I have perused the award. I do not find any infirmity with the award with regard to the objections as Filed by the respondent qua Claim nos.1, 3 and 9. The objections to the award are vague. The award is a reasoned award. I do not see any merit in the objections of the respondents qua award of claim nos. 1, 3 and 9. However, counsel for the parties have vehemently argued non-award of pendente lite interest by the arbitrator.

(3.) According to counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.Moitra, the arbitrator ought to have awarded interest in favour of the petitioner as the arbitrator found that there were some sums which were due and payable to the petitioner and withholding of that amount has deprived the petitioner of its dues and, therefore, in terms of Section 4 of the Interest Act, the petitioner be awarded pendente lite interest as well as interest. from the date of award/decree till its realisation. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt of Orissa & ors. etc., V/s . G C Roy and Raghunath Mohapatra 1992(1) ALR 145 and Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation, Division Orissa etc. etc. 486.