VINOD KUMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Slum and JJ Department was earlier under the DDA when contract for construction of 400 slums tenements and slum park was awarded to the petitioner vide Agreement dated 17/12/1981. Disputes arose between the parties and the same were referred to be arbitrated upon by Sh.K.D.Bali, sole arbitrator. He entered upon reference, heard both the parties and made and published his award dated 19/01/1991. The petitioner filed petition being Suit No.353 of 1991 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940(for short 'Act') praying that arbitrator be directed to file the award along with the proceedings. On directions issued by the court to the arbitrator, the arbitrator filed the award. Notice of filing of the award was sent to the parties. The respondent DDA filed objections to the award by means of IA No.9857/91.The Slum and JJ Wing Department having been transferred to the MCD, the MCD has appeared in the case to press these objections. The petitioner had filed reply to the objections. Following issues were framed:

(2.) Objections are aimed at award Of amount against claims 2, 5, 8, 11 and 13. In so far as claim No.2 is concerned, the learned arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,333.00 in favour of the petitioner as cartage charges for disposal of additional earth to the tune of 929.16 cubic meters. The objection is that out of the total quantity of excavated earth of 3576.49 cubic meters, only the earth to the extent of 963.67 cubic meters was carted out from the side. The remaining earth was utilised in refilling the foundation at other places. It is submitted that the petitioner has not disputed the quantity of the earth carted out/removed from the site. So the question of any other additional cartage of earth does not arise. It is also submitted that the contractor has already been paid the cartage for 963.67 cubic meters and thus the award for*giving extra cartage of earth to the tune of 929.16 cubic meter for Rs. 11,333.00 is not based on any evidence and the findings are perverse.

(3.) The aforesaid objection touches upon the merits of the claim. This Objection has been raised on facts which were before the learned arbitrator. The award shows that these facts were duly considered in detail by the learned arbitrator while deciding the claim. Following observations of the learned arbitrator would demonstrate the application of mind by the learned arbitrator to the points raised by the respondents during the arbitration proceedings: