KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit No. 2478-A/2001 is an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act') for directing respondent No. 2-Mr. Somdev to file the Award and proceedings in the arbitration between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA'). The petitioner contended that the petitioner intended to challenge the Award. The Award in question was made on 5/10/2001. The application under Section 14 of the Act was filed on 25/10/2001. On 19/12/2001 objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act was filed, which was registered as 1A 4279/2002.

(2.) The dispute between the parties was over the contract for construction of Convenient Shopping Centre at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi which was granted to the petitioner vide Agreement No. 9/EE/ND-X/DDA/88-89 between the petitioner M/s. Kumar Construction Company and the DDA dated 25/10/1988 - 25/11/1988. The petitioner had to file a petition for appointment of an Arbitrator. The respondent DDA appointed an Arbitrator during the pendency of that suit being Suit No. 462- A/1990. The Arbitrator subsequently made the Award on 18/3/1992. The Arbitrator dealt with the claim of the contractor, namely the petitioner, and also with the counter-claim of the DDA and an Award was published on 18/3/1992. The Award was filed in the Court. The petitioner/contractor raised objections to the Award. These were registered as Suit No. 1645-A/1992 and Suit No. 205-A/1994 and 1A 2097/1994 and were decided on 27/10/1996. The Arbitrator found that the counterclaim No. 1 viz. payment of Rs. 4,64,038.00 on account of work being done at the risk and cost of the contractor was premature and should be dealt with at appropriate time when actual expenditure incurred for doing the work at the risk and cost of the contractor was available. Therefore, on conclusion of the work fresh appointment of the Arbitrator was demanded by the DDA by letter dated 11/4/2000 and. hence, the appointment of the present Arbitrator. For the present A ward, therefore, it is the DDA who is the claimant. The claim was for a sum of Rs. 4,10,965.00 on account of work done at the risk and cost of the contractor. The impugned award is passed on this claim of DDA.

(3.) The impugned Award finds that the contractor did not complete the work and so the contract was rescinded and then the work was got done at the risk and cost of the contractor.