DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. W.S. CONSTRUCTION CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/DDA awarded a contract to the respondent for construction of 320 MIG houses at Jahangirpuri under agreement no.44/EE/DDV/81-82. THE disputes arose inter se the parties and on account of an arbitration clause in the agreement, the respondent filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). THE said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 23.02.1987 directing the Engineer Member, DDA (the designated authority) to appoint an Arbitrator. Mr. V.D. Tiwari was thereafter appointed as the Sole Arbitrator by the Engineer Member, DDA as per letter dated 28.04.1988 who made and published his award dated 29.08.1995 qua claims and counter claims. THE appellant thereafter filed objections under sections 30 and 33 of the said Act on the award being filed in court in suit no.2088A/1995. THE objections have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per the impugned order dated 19.09.2001.

(2.) WE may notice at the threshold that both the award and the order of the learned Single Judge are reasoned ones. The Arbitrator has examined each of the claims and counter claims, appreciated the evidence and reached conclusion separately under each of the heads. The respondent has been held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,21,217/- alongwith simple interest @ 14% p.a. from 14.06.1988 (the date of entering upon reference upto the date of publication of the award). A period of two months from date of publication of the award was given for payment of the amount, failing which future simple interest at 14% p.a. would also be payable. The bank guarantee of Rs.1 Lakh for security deposit in possession of the appellant was directed to be released to the respondent. The conclusion contained in the award is as under :-

(3.) THE work was in progress for 11 months and at no stage was found defective or sub-standard. It is thus the finding of the Arbitrator that isolated patches of sub-standard work could have escaped the attention of the appellant but the items like placing of reinforcement, walls not in plumb, cross walls not jointed, etc. could not have escaped the attention. THE certification available shows that the RCC work had been 100% checked by the Assistant Engineer of the appellant and thus, it has been found that the respondent could not be blamed singly for sub-standard work.