DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SARASWATI CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the objections of the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were dismissed. Mr.Anil Sapra, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has contended that payment in respect of the claims in the award has been made except under Claim Nos.13 and 18 and he restricts his arguments to the award made by the Arbitrator in respect of claim Nos. 13 and 18 and objections rejected by the learned Single Judge on that account.

(2.) Claim No.13 is a claim by the respondent for Rs.8,75,000/- on account of damages suffered due to non- release of clause 10 CC payment in due time, deviation from the index as applicable at the time of payment, late payment of running as well as final payment, release of security and withheld amount, idling of machinery as well as shuttering on account of late laying of conduit for casting of slabs, transportation and also deviation of quantities beyond agreement of various items. Mr.Anil Sapra, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award of the Arbitrator on this claim was against the term of reference and has contended that clause (7) of the agreement postulated that it was only on the submission of the final bill by the contractor within one month of the date fixed for completion of the work or of the date of the certificate of completion furnished by the Engineer-in-charge, payment was to be made within three months, if the amount of the contract plus that of additional items was upto Rs.2 lakhs and in six months, if the same exceeded Rs.2 lakhs, of the submission of such bill. It was contended that no final bill was submitted by the contractor and, therefore, the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings in as much as he has awarded the claim beyond the terms of contract. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellant has cited Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and anr. AIR 1999 SC 3627 where the Supreme Court observed as under:

(3.) With regard to the claim No.18, Mr.Sapra has contended the said claim was filed by the claimant/respondent no.1 for Rs.7,50,000/- on account of expenditure incurred for employing technical and other staff for the period beyond stipulated date of completion. It was contended that while granting extension of time the respondent no.1 had given a letter that he had not suffered any liquidated damage and will not claim anything except payment under Clause 10 CC and, therefore, the learned Arbitrator ought not to have allowed the said claim. It was also contended that in terms of award of claim under claim 13, the arbitrator has allowed interest over interest, if one considers the entire award. The Arbitrator has awarded pendenlite interest at 15% per annum from the date of reference to the date of award i.e w.e.f 18.12.1991 to 10.08.1993 on the awarded amount of Rs.14,54,868 against claims no.1 to 20 and interest at 15% per annum on the total amount of the award, Rs.18,13,128/- from the date of award till the date of payment or decree whichever will be earlier. His submission is that thus the Arbitrator has allowed interest over interest which includes interest awarded under claim no.13.