SHANTI DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal heirs of Late Shri O.P. Sharma who had entered into a contract with the Delhi Development Authority for execution of the work i.e. construction of 900 SFS Houses at Sarita Vihar, Blocks F and G. The construction was to be executed as per specifications and in terms of the agreement bearing no. 27/EE/CPD-II/DDA 85-86. In terms of the agreement, 18 blocks were to be constructed but after the award of the work, a letter was issued by the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') on 29.9.1987 stating that as the site for remaining 4 blocks would be handed over to O.P. Sharma as and when the same is available. However, in August 1988 another letter was written by the DDA stating that the scope of the work for the remaining 4 blocks had been curtailed due to a stay order in respect of the land in question and the work would be restricted to 14 blocks only. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:-

(2.) The above letter was replied to by the petitioner on 29.8.1988 , which reads as follows:-

(3.) In the month of January 1989, the respondents had issued a notice inviting tenders bearing no. NIT 26/EE/SCD-1/88-89/DDA for the remaining 4 blocks of the work in question to which the petitioner had also objected and had written a letter on 31.1.1989. As already informed to the DDA, the petitioner stated that he was willing to complete the work at the same rates. Despite this, the work of the petitioner was curtailed and the work was allotted to a third party. In the meantime, amongst the above, other disputes also arose between Mr. O.P. Sharma, the Contractor, and the DDA and the contractor thus, invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement executed between the parties. In reference to the notice served, the respondent no.2 had appointed an Arbitrator vide letter dated 3.1.1991. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, Sh. O.P. Sharma expired on 6.2.1991 and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and the appellants raised three claims in their petition. The Arbitrator after completing his proceedings in accordance with law made and published his award dated 15.11.1991, a copy of which was served upon the appellant on 17.11.1991, who filed a petition under Section 14 to 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 3 of the Interest Act stating, that the award be made Rule of the Court. The respondents also filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Claim No.1 was decided in favour of the appellants and they were allowed a sum of Rs.1,89,600/- by the Arbitrator on account of damages as the curtailment of work was found to be unjustified by the Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 24.11.1998 rejected all the claims of the claimant primarily expressing the view that in terms of Clause 13, the appellants were not entitled to any damages or compensation on account of curtailment of the work and the remaining claims primarily relating to award of interest on the said sum could also not be granted to the appellants. The appellants being aggrieved from the judgment of the learned Single Judge has filed the present appeal which is contested by the respondents.