MCD Vs. S N MALHOTRA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act') challenging the award dated 8th April 2005 passed by Sh.C.M. Vij, Sole Arbitrator-cum-Engineer in Chief, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Two objections are pressed.

(2.) The first objection is to the award in respect of claim NO.3. Under this claim the respondent had claimed payment of RS.1 ,28,100/- on account of deployment of watch and ward staff for the period 1st April 2002 to 15th July 2002. The learned Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs:l,02,680/-. The claim was founded on the averments that although work was completed on 30th March 2002, possession was not taken by the petitioner- MCD and possession of four sites in respect of which work was awarded to the respondent was taken much after the date of completion of work. In respect of thrte sites, possession was taken on 2nd July 2002 and possession of fourth site was taken on 251h July 2002. Because of delayed possession the respondent had to keep watch and ward staff for the period 1st April 2002 to 151h July 2002. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the work was completed on 30th March 2002, no intimation thereof was given to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not take the possession and because of the aforesaid lapse on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Perusal of the award would show that while awarding the aforesaid sum, the learned Arbitrator has relied upon final bill prepared by the petitioners themselves which recorded that the work was completed on 30th March 2002 and from this the learned Arbitrator inferred that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner herein that the work had been completed on 30th March 2002 and they should have taken possession of the sites immediately thereafter. The aforesaid view taken by the learned Arbitrator is plausible one and this Court is not to sit in appeal over the said finding arrived at by the learned Arbitrator, as it would not come within the sweep of Section 34 of the Act.

(3.) The second objection is to the award of interest on the refund of security. The respondent herein had deposited security of Rs.1,25,000/-. Since this security was not refunded, the respondent preferred a claim for refund of the security as well as interest on this security deposit. The Arbitrator has awarded interest on this security amount with effect from 1st October 2002. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contractor was under obligation to give clearance certificate from the Labour Officer before he could become entitled to refund of this security as per clause 45 of the General Conditions of Contract. This clause reads as under: