LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-351

DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. A.P.CONSTRUCTIONS

Decided On February 06, 2014
DELHI JAL BOARD Appellant
V/S
A.P.Constructions Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek the setting aside of Award dated 08.01.2004 read with its correction dated 15.01.2004. The respondent - contractor was awarded the work of construction of SW Drainage of Adarsh Nagar Group of Colonies Part IIB. The agreement was signed on 13.02.1998. The contract was an item rated one, based on the schedule of quantities given in the tender documents. The completion period was 18 months, and the completion date was reckoned from 12.02.1998. The work was not completed on the scheduled date and time for completion was extended. It was completed on 28.06.2000. The extension of time was granted without levy of damages on the respondent -contractor. Disputes having arisen between the parties, they were referred to arbitration.

(2.) THE learned Arbitrator considered the claims of the respondent - contractor. The first claim was for payment due under clause 10CC. This claim was allowed, as not opposed by the petitioner. No objection has been preferred before this Court in respect of this claim.

(3.) LEARNED Arbitrator allowed this claim. The reasoning given by him is that the respondent -claimant submitted the original design as per the instructions and specifications of the petitioner. The petitioner did not point out any defect or deviation in the design as submitted which was duly checked by the IIT. Consequently, the petitioner could have got the work executed as per the design submitted by the respondent -claimant on 22.04.1998. However, the design had to be re -drawn by the respondent at the behest of the petitioner, who desired that instead of a closed drain - as originally envisaged, the respondent should design an open drain, so as to reduce the cost. The respondent placed reliance on clause (9) of the Special Conditions and Clause (12) of the Conditions of Contract to defend this claim. The learned Arbitrator interprets clauses (9) and (12) in the following way: