ALKARAM Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts.This case raises a rather interesting point. It arises upon a petition under s.20 of the Arbitration Act (the Act). It arises in this way Shri Jai Kishan Das of M|s Alkarma, petitioner, is a contractor. He entered into a contract with the respondent, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the execution of work of construction. He was awarded the work of fixing aluminium windows in Vikas Minar, a building where DDA sits. This work was awarded to him in 1973.

(2.) THE contractor did the work. While the work was in progress certain disputes arose between the parties. THE contract contains an arbitration clause. This is clause 25. It reads :

(3.) P. C. Mallick J. in Seth Kerorimall v. Union Of India AIR 1964 Cal. 545(2) has held that the same dispute once referred and embodied in an award cannot be the subject matter of a fresh reference and to that extent the rule of res judicata applies to arbitration proceedings. But he was not prepared to hold that the disputes which could have been raised but were not raised previously cannot be raised on the principle of constructive res judicata. If the principle of constructive res judicata does not apply to arbitration I do not see how a draconian provision such as Order II Rule 2 can apply. Until we hold that arbitrator is a court we cannot accept that the principle of Order II Rule 2 applies to proceedings before him. Mallick J. has said :