VEDA RESEARCH LABORATORIES LTD Vs. SURVI PROJECTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the leaned single Judge dated 07.11.2012 whereby the objections filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) impugning the Award dated 28.9.2006 had been dismissed.

(2.) Disputes between the appellant and the respondent arose out of an agreement dated 31.01.1998 entered into between the parties for the construction of a factory building of the appellant at Noida. Work was to commence on 01.2.1998 and was to be completed by 30.9.1998. It was valued at Rs.1,25,56,948 after adjusting a rebate of 2% of the value of the work. The work could not be completed in time and time period of the work was accordingly extended. Four claims were raised by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. According to him the work could not be completed on account of the delays and breaches of contract committed by the appellant which had led to the prolongation of the work; in spite of his communications dated 17.02.1998, 23.02.1998 as also meeting held on 06.3.1998, 06.5.1998 necessary facilities as requested by the claimant were not provided by the appellant. Appellant had filed a counter claim; submissions being that the claims of the claimant were baseless; work was only substantially completed; it was not fully complete; the appellant had to get the work completed through a third party.

(3.) Claim No.1 was on account of the total value of the work executed. The Arbitral Tribunal had noted that the certification by the Architect up to the 10th running bill and the 11th and 12th bills having been verified by the site engineer of the appellant which had been duly passed, an amount of Rs.1,23,04,565/- was payable under this head. TDS deductions and adjustments of mobilization advances had also been dealt with in detail. The evidence filed by the claimant which included two affidavits of one of its partner and the cross-examination conducted on this account as also the documents filed by the claimant in support of this claim had been adverted to. So also the evidence produced by the appellant. Testimony of each of these witnesses as also the amounts payable under the different running bills has been discussed. The submission of the appellant that a cash payment of Rs.6 lacs towards 10th running bill had been accepted by the claimant was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal after an in depth analysis. It had been noted that business relations between the parties had become bitter; parties had gone for arbitration. Payment of Rs.5 lacs in cash to an employee in these circumstances would be implausible; the signature of Govind Sharma on these receipts was doubtful and un-corroborated. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the report of the handwriting expert has not been obtained qua this payment which by itself would disentitle the claimant to the benefit of this amount was rightly rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal; report of a handwriting expert can only be one piece of evidence; there was otherwise sufficient evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the payment of Rs.6 lacs purported to have been made by the appellant. The learned single Judge has endorsed the finding on this claim and in fact in para 6 of the judgment has quoted the finding given by the Tribunal on this count.