BHAI SARDAR SINGH SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claimant had filed this petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 194O (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" only ) with the prayer to direct the arbitrator to file the Award dated 21.1.1990 in the Court. The respondent No.1-objector filed I.A.No. 3627/90 raising objections against the Award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent-objector pleaded that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings and as such the Award was liable to be modified/set aside so far as it relates to the amount awarded in favour of the claimant-petitioner. It was stated that the counter claim of Rs. 196693.87 as awarded in favour of the respondent-objector may be sustained.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the objections filed by the respondent-objector, briefly stated, are that the petitioner and respondent had entered into an Agreement No.8EE/HD-18/DDA-76-77 in respect of a work to be executed by the petitioner for the respondent. The Agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause. In view of certain disputes between the parties a reference was made to Shri Sharat Chandra Gupta, who was working as Chief Engineer (Design and Training) with respondent objector. The Arbitrator, after considering the disputes between the parties and examining the evidence/material placed before him, passed the impugned Award dated 21.1.1990 awarding a sum of Rs.199288.00p. in favour of the claimant-petitioner .

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-objector has assailed the impugned Award in respect of Claim No.3 under which the recovery of Rs. 7670.89p was not allowed in favour of the respondent-objector on account of excess utilisation of Cement and Steel. He has also challenged the claim upheld vide Clause 0 in the sum of Rs. 23654 on the basis of difference in the measurements of the work done. He assails Claim No.3.1 and 3.3 on account of compensation to the petitioner due to delay in the completion of the work and contends that the material on record clearly demonstrated that the delay in the completion of the work was attributable to both the parties and as such the Arbitrator had committed serious error in awarding compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the claimants-petitioner on account of delay.