EM AND EM ASSOCIATES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Appeal the Appellant M/s. Em & Em Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor'), has assailed the impugned judgment dated 26.5.1989 of the Learned Single Judge, in respect of Claims 3 & 4 and 16 to 18. We shall consider Claims 3 and 4 together as has been done in the Statement of Claims, in the arbitral Award, and in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. These Claims are - "that the rates quoted by the Claimants in their tender were based on the quantities shown in the Schedule to the tender documents but when the work was actually carried out it was found by the Claimants that the quantity shown in the schedule to tender documents was wrong and as a result of the wrong quantities mentioned in respect of Box-Liners and Shutters in the schedule to the tender documents by the Respondent, the claimants suffered a loss of Rs.1,06,725.51 i.e. Rs.30,483.66 in respect of Box Liners and Rs.76,241.85 in respect of Shutters. The respondent is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.1,06,725.51 to the Claimants along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum which comes to Rs.16,008.75 from 11.10.82 till the filing of this statement of claim." Originally, the Award read as in the first Column, and after its remission reads as in the second column. These have been juxtaposed for facility of comparison, and for a complete understanding of the reasons which prevailed upon the Arbitrator to make his award in respect of these two claims:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_52_ILRDLH9_2002Html1.htm</FRM> After considering the above reasons the Learned Single Judge was of the following opinion:

(2.) Since the Learned Single Judge has relied on Clauses 7 & 8 of the Agreement these are reproduced below. It is, however, important to immediately mention that these Clauses are contained in the "Percentage Rate Tender & Contract for works - General Rules and Directions" (underlining added). It is an established principle of interpretation that general provisions should make way to specific provisions in case of any inconsistency between them; and that later provisions usually modify and prevail upon preceding ones. It will further be relevant to mention that Clauses 7 and 8 contemplate the manner in which payments are to be made to the Contractor. These would, therefore, not be germane to the controversy that has arisen in the present case viz. the quantification of the actual amounts due and payable to the Contractor. The Learned Single Judge has not discussed any of the Clauses which are specific to the Scope of work which was to be completed by the Contractor, as has the Arbitrator.

(3.) The Arbitrator, however, found the following Clauses of the Agreement to be relevant for the determination of the disputes between the parties. There are several sub clauses which need not be produced since they are similar in nature to sub clause (a). <FRM>JUDGEMENT_52_ILRDLH9_2002Html2.htm</FRM> ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS & SPECIFICATION 1 . GENERAL 1.1 The cup-boards shall be manufactured as per actual nitch size in individual house according to enclosed drawings.