BABU LAL BARWA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent DDA has filed objections under Sections 30and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the Award dated 17/07/1990 vide I.A. No.11384 of 1990. The learned Counsel for the objector has challenged the Award so faras it relates to Claims No. 1 and 2 of the contractor/petitioner herein. Under claimNo. 1, the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 on account of under paymentdue to part rates for the work executed and completed till rescision of the work. Inthe Award on this point the Arbitrator has noted that the respondent DDA hadadmitted that a sum of Rs. 20,506.00 had been withheld in part rates. The plea of therespondent regarding justification for withholding the said amount was rejected bythe Arbitrator after considering the same on merits. At this stage, this Court is notsitting in appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator. I find no ground to interfere withthe findings of the Arbitrator with respect to Claim No. 1 under which a sum of Rs.20,506.00 has been awarded by the Arbitrator in favour of the claimant.

(2.) The objection of the respondent DDA regarding Claim No. 2 is based onClause No. 2 of the agreement between the parties. It is submitted that under Clause2, the decision of the Superintend ing Engineer regarding levy of penalty is final and,therefore, cannot be subject matter of arbitration. Clause No. 2 of the contract isreproduced below:

(3.) It is settled law that if the decision of an authority is treated as final on someaspect of the contract as per the provisions of the contract, such a matter cannot bereferred to arbitration. Such a provision deprives the Arbitrator of any jurisdictionto adjudicate upon the controversy. Reference may be made to Delhi DevelopmentAuthority v. Sudhir Brothers, 57 (1995) D.L.T. 474. In the present case, the discussionin the Award on Claim No. 2 itself shows that the Superintending Engineer hadthrough his letter dated 3/05/1990 levied a penalty of Rs. 29,963.00. The levy ofpenalty and the amount of the penalty were thus beyond the scope of jurisdictionof the Arbitrator and the Award of the Arbitrator awarding a sum of Rs. 29,963/in favour of the contractor is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The Award with respect to claim No. 2 is liable to be set aside.