SUDHIR BROTHERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.-

(2.) THIS is a petition under Sections 14 and '17 of the Arbitration Act.

(3.) FOUR items of dispute can be taken up for consideration together. These are claims No. 1C, ID and 7 preferred by the petitioner and counterclaim No. 1 preferred by the respondent. I may briefly notice the claims counter-claim (as each of them was preferred), the award made by the arbitrator on these items and the gist of reasonings adopted by him. I extract and reproduce from the award the beads of claims and findings as recorded : Claim No. 1(C). Balance payment of Labour 10C Rs. 30,657.54. Stipulated date of completion Was 15.1.1982. Since this statutory like was effective from 1.3.1982 as per the circular of the Chief Engineer DDA, the same was payable if the delay in completion was not attributable to the claimant. Award In this case. the total amount of labour (10C) on the rate approved by Delhi Administration comes to Rs. 65,214.69 as per Ex. C-143. Since the respondent had already released payment of Rs. 34,557,15, the balance amount of Rs. 30,657.54 is still payable to the claimant. I find that since the delay was attributable to the respondent, the balance amount of Rs. 30,657.54 is liable to be paid. Accordingly 1 award Rs. 30,657.54 in favour of the claimant. Claim No. l(d). The payment under bricks (10C) Rs. 86,601. Award The claimants state that there was a hike in the price of bricks. The respondent agreed that there was a hike in the price of bricks and as per their own calculations the amount payable on this account was Rs. 86,601. But since according to the respondents, the delay was on the part of the claimants, the claimants were not entitled to any payment on this account. As I have held elsewhere that the delay in the case was entirely attributable to the respondents, I hold the claimants arc entitled to Rs. 86,601 on account of bricks 10-C. Counter-claim No. 1 : Respondent claim for Rs. 4,44,629 at 10% amount put into tender under clause 11 of the agreement. Award Since the present claim has been duly referred for arbitration, I have acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. Time was not maintained of the essence of the contract. Clause 2 becomes inoperative. As the delay has been held to be attributable to the respondents, they allowed to take advantage of their own default. Levy of compensation of Rs. 4,44,629 is bad in law and its levy by the Superintending Engineer was not justified. Accordingly, I hold that the counter claim No. 1 of the respondents is without merit I, therefore, disallow the counter claim No. 1. Claim No. 7 : Claimants claim Rs. 2,81,114 towards loss of profits on the balance gross amount on the work left to be executed at the time of repudiation of contract by the claimants. Award I award the loss of profits @ 10% on the amount of balance unexecuted work on agreement items alone which is to the extent of Rs. 22,48,996.94. This works out to Rs. 2,24,889 which I award in favour of the claimants to be paid by the respondents under claim.