RAGHU NATH GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order learned Single Judge set aside a part of the Award of the Arbitrator which pertained to counter claim no. 3 of DDA holding that the same was not arbitrable and made the remaining award as a rule of court. None of the parties is aggrieved with the remaining part of the order. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against that part of the order passed on 14/07/2000 by learned Single Judge by which award of the arbitrator on counter claim of DDA was set aside.

(2.) The disputes between the parties were referred for the sole arbitration of Sh. N Lakshmiah who proceeded to make and publish his Award on 7/05/1994. Counter claim No. 3 of respondent- DDA was for a sum of Rs. 1,75,151.00 on account of "extension of time the work not started during stipulated period and work extremely delayed". The Arbitrator in his award held that the question of levy of compensation under clause 2 of the contract was not correct since DDA went on accepting the work done by the contractor after the stipulated date of completion without reserving its right to levy compensation for delay and also not making time as essence of the contract, therefore, clause 2 of the contract becomes inoperative. Consequently, he made Nil Award on counter claim no. 3 of DDA.

(3.) On Award being filed in court and notices being issued objections were filed by DDA to the Award. However, no objections were filed by DDA to that part of the Award of the arbitrator by which counter claim no. 3 was adjudicated upon on the ground that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make any adjudication or that the counter claim was not arbitrable in terms of clause 25 of the Agreement. Irrespective of the fact that objection had not been raised DDA was permitted to raise the said objections orally during the course of arguments that the said counter claim No. 3 was not arbitrable and, therefore, the Award of the arbitrator qua the said counter claim was without jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge as noticed above, proceeded to hold that clause 2 of the agreement makes the decision of the Superintending Engineer, DDA with regard to the question of compensation final therefore, in terms of clause 25 of the agreement such a claim for compensation on account of delay was not arbitrable.