BABU RAM AND CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri L.R.Gupta was appointed as the sole arbitrator. He pronounced the award dated 31/5/1993. The award was failed in court and notice had been lssued to the parties. Both M/s Babu Ram & Co. (for short the petitioner) and the Delhi Development Authority (the respondent) had preferred objections. In the objections filed by the petitioner it has been alleged that work for providing and laying peripheral sewer line in the area south of Ghaziabad-Nizamuddin Railway line had been awarded to the petitioner. The work was to commence on 25/5/1986 and to be completed within a period of 12 months. The petitioner had been assured that it was a clear site but on the contrary the site was made available only in piece meal. The work as such was completed and the matter was referred to the arbitrator. Petitioner alleges that arbitrator has gone astray in giving the award and assails the same itemwise, namely where the claim of the petitioner has been turned down. He assails the findings of fact in seriatim pertaining to claim no.2 for Rs. 2,54,276.07 on account of payment withheld of respondent as part rate for extra and substituted items. Claim no.2 withholding Rs.1,00,000.00 from running bills; claim no.5(i) for Rs.56,508.85 for cement concrete encasement over joints of pipes and claim 5(ii) for Rs.8,000.00 and 5(iii) for 1,41,752 for GI sheet barricading; claim no. 6 for Rs.93,710.00 and lastly claim no.7 for restoring 600 mm pipe line. According to the petitioner the findings recorded by the arbitrator in this regard are incorrect. It is also assereted that arbitrator was in error in awarding Rs.1,02,998.00 to the respondent.

(2.) Even the respondent preferred objections against the said award. Firstly stating that the reasons have not been recorded in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. The DDA also assails the findings of the arbitrator on facts with respect to claim nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 (i) and 8. It is again asserted that these findings so arrived at on facts are not sustainable.

(3.) The short question that comes up for consideration in the present case in view of the facts narrated above, is whether the award is liable to be set aside or not on the reasons stated.