HARGOVIND JAGGI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Sections 14 and. 17 of the Arbitration Act( registered as Suit No. 2086/90) for issue of a direction to respondentNo.3. i.e. Shri 0m Prakash, Arbitrator to file the award dated 26/04/1990 and tomake the same a rule of the Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: thatrespondent No.1 herein awarded a contract with regard to construction of Storewith Railways siding facilities at G.T.K-RoadSH: Construction of room forelectrical JE and Security Guard room vide agreement No. 6/EE/SDI/DDA /85-86on behalf of respondent No.2. Certain disputes and differences arose in betweenthe parties with regard to the execution of the said contract and the same werereferred to the sole arbitration of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 enteredthe reference and published his award on 26/04/1990.

(3.) THE Arbitrator while dis-allowing the claim of the respondent has opinedthat the steel weighing 1.170 MT was lying at the site and the same was in thecustody and possession of the respondent. Hence no lapse can be attributed to thepetitioner on the said score and the petitioner is not under any obligation to accountfor the same. According to the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner was issued steelweighing 3.630MT. THE steel which was found lying at the site was 1.170 MT thusleaving 2.460 MT. THE steel which was recovered out of the same in the firstrunning account bill was to the tune of 1.800 MT. Thus, the learned arbitratorallowed for the balance of the steel i.e. .660 MT at the rate of Rs. 5930.00 per MT i.e.to the tune of Rs. 3,913.80. THE learned Arbitrator while dis-allowing the claimof the respondent to make penal recoveries on the said score has opined that thepenal recovery can be effected only in those discerning few cases where therespondent are in a position to make out a case that they have suffered any loss onaccount of the non return of the excess materials issued to the petitioner.