BRIJ LAL AND SONS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner says that he does not wish to press the objections filed by the petitioner. Dismissed as withdrawn.

(2.) Objections to the award have been filed by the respondent-objector of claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 15, 8, 11, 12 and 13. Most of the objections are frivolous as this court is not to re-appreciate or re-consider the evidence which was led before the arbitrator.

(3.) Ms. Anusya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-objector, has contended that arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings as the arbitrator could not have awarded an amount of Rs. 2,05,600/= under claim Nos. 7 and 15. Under claim No. 7 claimant, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/= on account of compound interest for blocking of money after completion and under claim No. 15 claimant claimed 20% compound interest pre-suited and backdated from the actual date of payment till payment was made. The arbitrator has held that the claim for interest withheld by the claimant was in line with the judgments given by the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, the interest was not payable on the amount claimed as damages or loss of profits. He has-relied that in this particular case the claimant was forced to accept the measurements of the final bill and date of completion as recorded on 10.11.1989. However, the final bill was paid on 11.6.1991 and the amount which was wrongly withheld or which was not paid works out to Rs. 2,05,577/=. The arbitrator did not allow 20% compound interest but allowed simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,05,577= from 11.10.1989 to 26.2.1995. I do not see any merit in the arguments of the respondent with regard to amount of Rs. 1,32,673/= on the aforesaid basis. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-objector.