TILAK RAJ GOGIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th February, 2013 whereby the arbitral award granting the appellant only Rs. 33,569/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30th November, 2010 till date of payment towards EMD Rs.13,069/- + PG Rs.20,500/- was upheld. The appellant / claimant, however, had claimed in excess of Rs. 13.3 lakh, plus damages with interest, which were declined.

(2.) The facts are that the appellant was awarded a contract for annual repair and maintenance of the Government of India office building and other allied buildings at NH-4, Faridabad. The work was scheduled to commence on 15th August, 2009 and be completed by 14th December, 2009. However, as things turned out, vide letter of 1st February, 2010, the contract was rescinded and the performance bank guarantee ("PG") forfeited. In proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("Act") by the petitioner before the ASJ, New Delhi, a direction was issued for measurement of the work claimed to have been accomplished by him. The inspection was carried on 16th September, 2011. Ever since the arbitration clause was invoked, two sole Arbitrators, i.e. Shri Diwakar Garg and Shri Rajiv Kumar were nominated / appointed but resigned and eventually, the third sole Arbitrator Shri V. K. Malik pronounced the award on 30th July, 2012 with a corrigendum thereto dated 16th August, 2012. The petitioner had claimed a payment of Rs.13.3 lakhs against a bill he had raised for such amount. The substance of the award has been discussed hereinabove pursuant to which the Section 34 petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The appellant appears in person and has reiterated the same contentions as he did before the learned Single Judge. In addition, he states that no independent witness was called upon to ascertain and verify the measurement recorded by the CPWD.

(3.) Having heard the petitioner and considering the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has dealt with all the contentions raised by the appellant herein. The only factor to be considered was whether the appellant had executed the work as claimed by him and whether the bills submitted by him were admissible on the basis of works claimed to have been completed.