DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge rendered on 09.10.2012 in CS(OS) No. 2222/2007. The learned Single Judge decided objections filed under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to an award dated 20.08.2007 made by a learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants') and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) i.e. the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the claimant was awarded work to construct 1088 LIG Dwelling Units (NP) at Dilshad Garden, Pocket C, Zone E -6, Sub head: Construction of 320 LIG dwelling units in Phase 1. The learned Arbitrator's award dealt with 18 heads of claim and some counter claims. The claimant preferred objections with respect to some of the heads of claim i.e. Nos. 2 to 8, 11 to 14 and 16 and the DDA's counter claim to the extent they were allowed by the award. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the objections partially and set aside the Award in respect of claims 3 -7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 (to the extent disallowed) and all the counter claims.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for DDA next submitted that the findings with respect to Claim No. 11 were unwarranted. He highlighted that under this head, the sum of Rs. 88723.41 was claimed but rejected by the Arbitrator. The claimant had urged that the drawings furnished did not indicate provisions for glazing bars and have relied upon a letter of 31.08.85 written by the Executive Engineer. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge over -looked the fact that the claimant failed to establish by any objective evidence that such standard specifications have been deviated from, warranting the award and amounts in question. Learned counsel next submitted that the Single Judge also erred in granting the sums of Rs. 123230 and Rs. 132066. It was contended here that the Single Judge failed to note that in fact the calculation for working out Clause 10(cc) had been made on quarterly basis. Learned counsel emphasised that the Single Judge has not recorded any findings as to the error in the award which has taken note of the proper methodology for calculating the amounts i.e. quarterly basis and instead appears to have assumed that monthly rate was actually adopted.