DDA Vs. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OMP No.392/2001 and OMP No.393/2001 which laid a challenge to two awards dated 27.7.2001 and 28.7.2001 were disposed of by passing a detailed judgment dated 25.1.2006 in OMP No.392/2001 and a short order passed in OMP No.393/2001. The two awards pertain to agreements No.1/EE/DD-VIII/86-97 and No.41/EE/DD-VIII/86-97. The awards were challenged qua claim No.9 by filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties conceded that both contracts were pari materia and spanned around the same time and nature of disputes were near identical, and in any case, pertaining to claim No.9 raised by the respondent, where sums awarded by the learned Arbitrator are ' 14,28,801/- in award dated 27.7.2001 and ' 15,14,800/- in award dated 28.7.2001, the legal issue which arises for consideration with respect to the challenge to the award is the same.

(3.) Undisputably, both contracts had a clause numbered 10CC which stipulated that price increase in cost of labour and material would be recompensed to the contractor on the formula prescribed in the clause and suffice would it be to note that in the decision pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court reported as DDA vs. U.Kashyap, 1998 1 ArbLR 88 which was followed by another Division Bench in the decision reported as DDA vs. K.C.Goel & Co., 2001 2 AD(Del) 116 with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Associated Engineering Co. vs. Govt. of A.P. & Anr, 1991 2 ArbLR 180. it was held that where the contract specifies the method to recompense the contractor for escalation in the price of material and labour, the same would hold good even during the extended period of work. Same view has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as DDA vs. M/s.S.S.Jetley, 2000 7 AD(Del) 743.