PANDIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri R.L.Bhakru had been appointed as the sole arbitrator. He had entered upon reference on 19/5/1992 and published the award dated 17/9/1993. Petitioner Pandit Construction Co. has filed the present petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for directing the arbitrator to file the award and for a decree to be passed in terms of the same.

(2.) In pursuance of the notice having been issued the Delhi Development Authority respondent has filed the objections invoking Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. It has been alleged that one of the preliminary objections was that claim was time barred because it was not raised within 30 days in terms of clause 7 of the agreement. It has further been alleged that another preliminary objection raised was vide letter dated 14/10/1991 the petitioner had given an undertaking not to claim anything extra due to delayed finalisation of the bill and the final bill was accepted towards full and final payment. The arbitrator wrongly concluded that undertaking had been given without any consideration or free consent. Furthermore the award is assailed with respect to different claims to be taken up hereinafter.

(3.) In the reply filed the petitioner contests the claim asserting that the arbitrator had found that the running account bill and the final bill were prepared by the objectors themselves. As a general practice also objectors have taken upon themselves the responsibility of preparing running account bills. Once the final bill is prepared obviously clause 7 of the agreement is not relevant. It is further stated that the arbitrator rightly concluded that the undertaking purported to have been given by the petitioner was of little consequence because huge amount of the petitioner had since been blocked. The assertions of the objector with respect to certain claims have also been controverted. On 7/2/1995 this court framed the following issues:-