JAGAT RAM TREHAN SONS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the application under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act moved by the petitioner the award was filed.. On being noticed the respondent DDA has assailed it by way of IA 9723/95. The main thrust of the objections appears to be in respect of claim No. 31 though as a ritual, each an every item of the award has been challenged.

(2.) Any award on factual matrix and based upon evidence and material produced by the parties does not admit .interference unless the Arbitrator has completely ignored a document which is material for the just and fair decision. Similarly, if the Arbitrator has tied himself down to an unsound legal proposition it amounts to legal misconduct and award on this count is liable to be set aside.

(3.) As regards item No. 2 of the claim which is on account of non-payment of work done of cutting and straightening reinforcement steel bars, Ms, Ansuyya Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the work of cutting and straightening was not extra work and included in item 3.9 pertaining to "re-in- forcement of steel bars". I have already dealt with this matter and judgments cited .and relied upon by her viz. S.K. Mangia v. DDA, (Suit No. 181/92 decided on 22nd May, 1995 and (ii) Wee Aar onstructive Builder v. DDA & Another, (Suit No. 2456-A/96} in Constructive Builder v. DDA &Anr, 2001 VI AD (Delhi) 482 and taken the view that the work of cutting and straightening and. re-inforcement of steel bars was an extra work done,and did not form component of item 3.9. I deem it needless to repeat the reasons provided by me for arriving at this conclusion and uphold the award in this regard. The objections of the DDA therefore with regard to this claim are hereby repelled. Moreover Justice Vijender Jain in 2007 (V) AD Delhi 194 has also subscribed to my view.