MCD Vs. VINOD KUMAR & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the judgment impugned in this appeal, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi has dismissed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act" for short) of the appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are that Government of N.C.T. of Delhi proposed to construct multipurpose community centres and halls in different villages within the territory of Delhi. The work of construction was assigned to appellant as the executing agency. Executive Engineer (Project) Rural of appellant invited tenders for execution of different works, in anticipation of administrative approval of expenditure sanction and on assurance of site to be handed over by the Block Development Officers to the executing agency. Respondent responded to invitation of tender in respect of multi-storey community centre at Village Bakhatawarpur and submitted its offer. Respondent, being lowest tenderer, was awarded work for construction vide work order dated 8th July, 1995. Subsequently, a formal contract was executed between the respondent and appellant on 8th December, 1995. It appears that site was not handed over, thus, work was not executed. However, respondent mobilised its resources for executing the work.

(3.) Disputes arose between the parties regarding payment in respect of the awarded work, which were referred to the Sole Arbitrator Mr. C.M. Vij, who entered upon the reference and after affording opportunity to the parties to file pleadings and lead evidence, vide award dated 31st July, 2002 held that respondent was entitled to Rs. 27,000/- against claim no. 1; Rs. 30,000/- towards claim no. 2; Rs. 40,000/- towards claim no. 3; Rs. 1,20,000/- against claim no. 5 (iv); interest @12% per annum on Rs. 2,17,000/- with effect from 1 st April, 1996 against claim no. 6 and Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum towards claim no. 8. As regards claim nos. 4, 5(i) to 5(iii) and 7 are concerned, same were rejected. Learned Arbitrator has passed a speaking Award giving reasons for awarding the amounts against claim nos. 1, 2, 3, 5(iv), 6 and 8. Appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the trial court, which have been dismissed by the judgment impugned in this appeal.