DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. EMKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA 1797/2006 Allowed subject to just exceptions. OMP No 54/2006 The petitioner has filed objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') in respect of the award dated 30.06.2005 of Sh. K.S.Chauhan, the sole arbitrator. The respondent was awarded the work for construction of MIG Houses including internal development at Mayur Vihar, Pocket 5, Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the arbitrator while awarding additional claim no.6 on account of cost of watch and ward after defect liability period, has fallen into error by awarding the said amount despite noticing the fact that possibly no extra amount was payable to the respondent. A perusal of the discussion as recorded by the arbitrator would show that the arbitrator has assigned reasons why part claim has been allowed taking into consideration prevailing practice. There is no error in such a reasoning especially since Section 28(3) of the said Act itself mandates that an arbitral tribunal shall decide in accordance with terms of contract and shall take into account the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to additional claims no.2 and 3 relating to idle machinery and idle staff. The arbitrator has awarded only the amount for the essential supervisory staff deployed on the particular work.