JAGAT RAM TREHAN SONS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application bearing IA No. 3102/97 are objections to the award by the learned Arbitrator filed by the respondent. The respondent has filed objections in relation to Issue Nos. 1 to 6, 12, 14, 16, 23, 24, 28 and 31.

(2.) It has been vehemently contended by Ms.Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent/objector that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding the sums under various heads. From the arguments advanced before me, the serious objection is to claim of Rs.1,75,000/- towards straightening and cutting of reinforcement bars vide claim No.16. It was contended by Ms.Salwan that the agreement clause 3.10 provided for reinforcement for RCC work for bending, binding and placing in position and, therefore, the award on this account For straightening and cutting of reinforcement bars could not have been awarded. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the objector has cited a decision of this Court in M./SL ...wee Aar _Constructive Builders Vs. . Delhi Develppment Authority .&_ Anr. (Suit No.2456 A/96) decided on 14/03/2001. On the basis of the aforesaid decision it was contended that the very nature of the work involved of straightening and cutting of steel was included in bending, binding and placing in complete position. She also relied upon a decision of this Court in Shri S.K. Mangia Vs_. . Delhi, .Development Authority (Suit No.181/92) decided on 22.5.1995 in which the learned single Judge of this Court held that there was no question of making separate provision of cutting operation and straightening and cutting of steel is part of bending, binding and placing in complete position.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner/non-objector/claimant has contended that the nomenclature of Item No.3.10 was important as it did not include straightening and cutting of steel bars. He placed reliance on a decision in Suit No.l985-A/84 (K..C. Chhibar v. Delhi. Development Authority), Suit No.656-A/95 and Suit No.570 A/95 (Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority) decided on 30.10.1991 as well as decision of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board,Vs.. R.J. 5 hah_&.Company (1999) 4 SCC 214 and B.V. Radha. Krishna Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1997) 4 SCC 693.