NANEEN CONSTRUCTION Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the. parties- hereto entered into an agreement for development of an unauthorised colony in Trans-Yamuna area and laying down water line in School Block, Shakar Pur Complex, Delhi. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner started the work and while executing the aforesaid work, certain disputes arose between the parties, which in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement were referred for adjudication through the process of arbitration by appointing an Arbitrator. In terms; of the arbitration clause, namely clause-25 of the agreement the Engineer Member, DDA appointed the sole-Arbitrator, who entered into the reference and after allowing the parties bo adduce evidence and hearing the parties made and published his award . an 25.8.1995. Upon filing of the I said award in this court an objection is filed by the respondent/DDA seeking for setting aside the said award on various grounds as enumerated in the said objection. The petitioner, on the other hand,. prays for an order for making the award a rule of the court and to pass a decree in terms of the award.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing, for the respondent/objector as also the counsel." appearing for the petitioner on, the "aforesaid objection filed by the respondent and this Judgment and order shall also dispose of the said objection.

(3.) CLAIM NO. 1. before the Arbitrator pertains to petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.1,20,000.00 towards the amount of final bill. A counter-claim was also filed by the respondent before the Arbitrator, which was registered as Counter -Claim No.4, in which respondent claimed an amount of Rs. 57,827.92 towards penal recovery for non-return of departmental materials as shown in thefinal bill. The Arbitrator took up the aforesaid two claims together and passed-his award on the , said claims .holding that the petitioner is entitled for payment of an amount of Rs.67,722.64. Accordingly, the counter-claim-of the respondent stood rejected by the said award. I have considered the findings and the the conclusions recorded by the Arbitrator in respect of the aforesaid two claims, in the light of the documents placed on record. On perusal of the award, I find that although before the Arbitrator the respondent initially claimed Rs.57,827,92 towards penal recovery for non-return of departmental materials, as shown in the final bill, the said amount of recovery at penal rate was reduced to Re.39,707.72, during the course; of hearing before the Arbitrator. According to the respondent,in terms of'the final bill, an amount of Rs. 2,17,458.32 is recoverable from the petitioner the details of which are given in the award. In the aforesaid calculations, an amount of Rs. 1,60,176/- is shown as claim of the respondent towards comensation for delay in execution of work Item-A of the said recovery relates 'to income tax amounting to Rs.3,087.00, which was accepted by the petitioner subject, however; to issuance of certificate. The aforesaid recovery to be made by 'the respondent, accordingly stands accepted by the petitioner and, therefore, the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect thereof, justifying the said recovery is upheld Item-B therof pertains to recovery of materials issued by the department to the extent of Rs.75,389.40. The aforesaid claim for recovery of Rs.75,389.40 was sought to be raised by the respondent, during the course of hearing to Rs. 93,553.45. The aforesaid amount relates to balance quantity of C.I.Pipes and the same forks out to Rs.93,553.36, which was held by the Arbitrator to be recoverable from the petitioner There is no objection filed by the petitioner as against the said award and, therefore, the said award is upheld. Item-C thereof pertains to-recovery of materials at penal rates Which was claimed at Rs.57,827.92 and which was reduced to Rs 39,707/- during the course of hearing In respect of the said claim the Arbitrator held that the wastage of C.I .Pipes was within the permissible limit as per Clause-42 of the agreement and hence no recovery for C.I. pipes at penal rate would be justified. The aforesaid conclusions ( have been arrived at by the Arbitrator upon interpretation of Clause -42 of the agreement and therefore, no interference is called for in respect of the'"aforesaid conclusions, as this court cannnot sit over as the Appllate Court Over the interpretation and conclusions of the Arbitrator in that regard.