D.D.A. Vs. ANANT RAJ AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2005 rejecting the Delhi Development Authority's ("DDA") objections (I.A.1442/1996) under Ss. 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act. The DDA was aggrieved by an Award published by the Arbitrator on 15.07.1995.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent (hereafter referred to as "contractor") was awarded the work of laying out water pipes in Rohini, Phase -I, in terms of an agreement. The contract was to be executed within a period of 180 days. Disputes arose after execution with respect to payment. The Engineer member of DDA was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator published its Award on 15.07.1995. The DDA articulated several objections to the Award. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that given the minimal interference rule enunciated in various decisions of the Supreme Court, i.e., Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v/s. Union of India : (1999) 9 SCC 449 and Hindustan Tea Co. vs. K. Sashikant Co. and Anr., 1986 : AIR 1987 SC 81, there was no scope for interference. Learned Single Judge noted inter alia that there was a gross delay of 413 days in handing over of a part of the site and consequently the claim of escalation could not be treated as unreasonable.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the DDA by Mr. Ajay Verma that the Award and consequently the impugned judgment required interference on four broad grounds. Learned counsel submitted that so far as Reduction Item Statement ("RIS") No. 1&2 are concerned, the amounts awarded, i.e., Rs. 1,03,663/ - and Rs. 1,56,334.11 were not justified. He relied upon Clause 25B and submitted that the Superintending Engineering had the authority to exclusively decide whether and to what extent any deductions were to be made towards sub -standard work. Counsel submitted that the Award infers and deduces the facts based upon the contents of 13 Running Accounts (RA Bills). He highlights that the Arbitrator accepted the final bill. Consequently, the measurements indicated by the Superintending Engineer in the final bill could not be examined factually. Given these circumstances, submitted the counsel, the Arbitrator could not have tested the veracity of the assertions of the Superintending Engineer (in fact there was a shortfall of work to the extent of 41 cm. as against the prescribed 1.5 meter depth of constructions.