PRIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded contract by the Delhi Development Authority regarding construction of 936, Janta .Houses, Pocket v (Poorvi) Pitampura, Sub Head Construction of 888 Janta Houses. Disputes arose between the parties and Mr.V.R.vaish, retired Chief Engineer, CPWD was appointed as Arbitrator by Engineer Member, DDA vide letter dated 6/4/1987. He entered upon the reference, heard both the parties and after adjudication made and published Award dated 7/7/1989. Award was filed by the Arbitrator in this Court. On receiving the Award notice was issued to both the parties. The respondent-DDA has filed objections to this Award by means of IA.6226/97., Since there is some controversy as to whether the objections filed by the DDA are within time or not'inasmuch as in the written synopsis filed by the petitioner it has been alleged that objections filed by the DDA are barred by time, it may be clarified at the outset that counsel for the petitioner has already conceded, as is clear from the order dated 14/5/1996, that the objections were within time. Therefore,proceed to deal with the objections on merits.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred Claim No.1 for Rs.55,000.00 towards amount of running bill lying pending with the DDA and Claim No.2 for Rs.2 lacs towards Bill to be prepared after closure of contract for work executed. The learned Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.78,410.00 against these two claims supporting it with reasons as well as detailed calculations. The objection of the respondent is that the Arbitrator has arbitrarily taken 1977 Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) without considering Clause 12 of the Agreement which gives different method for calculating the rates for additions/altered and substituted work. A perusal of the Award shows that the items which are taken into consideration for which payment was not made, are the schedule item in 1977 DRS and these items should have been sanctioned in terms of Clause 12 of the Agreement on the basis of DRS rates plus contractors percentage '50.28% above. It is thus clear that DRS rates are taken as specifically provided in Clause 12 of the Agreement and the Arbitrator was fully Justified in taking DRS rates. It would be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of Clause 12(iii) hereunder; Clause l2(iii)

(3.) This objection is, therefore, without any merit. The next objection is to award of Claim No.3 which was for Rs.1.00 lac towards refund of security deposit. During the proceedings petitioner had submitted that part of security deposit has been refunded and the balance left was Rs.49,561.00. The Arbitrator has direct the respondent to pay this balance amount to the petitioner. The only objection is that this claim is against the terms and clauses of the Agreement, without specifying as to how it is so. The objections are vague and lack particulars, when the Arbitrator found that the petitioner was entitled to the refund of security deposit, there was nothing wrong in directing the respondent to release the said security deposit. This objection is also without any force.