BEDI CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the direction to respondent No. 4 (the sole Arbitrator), to file the original award dated 28.12.1992, rendered by the said Arbitrator between the petitioner (contractor) and the respondents, under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and making the same rule-decree of the Court.

(2.) Vide order dated 8.1.1993, notice was issued to respondent No. 4, the Sole Arbitrator, directing him to file the award along with the arbitration proceedings. Consequent upon respondent No. 4 filing the award along with the arbitration proceedings, vide order dated 14.5.93, the notice of filing of the award was issued to the respondents. The petitioner accepted the notice. Respondent No. vide IA 9860/93, filed objections to the award on 9.7.1993. Respondents 2 and 3 did not file any separate objections. Thereafter the issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor vide order dated 21.9.1994 and the Counsel for the parties stated that there is no need to file affidavit by way of evidence and that the arbitration record be read at the time of final arguments.

(3.) It may be noted that the petitioner has not filed any objections to the award rendered by respondent No. 4 and the objections have been filed by DDA- respondent No. 1. It is contended by Ms. Salwan, Counsel for respondent No. that for claim No. 1, undertaking has not been considered by the Arbitrator; that the claim has to be within 90 days of the receipt of the intimation of the final bill by the respondent; that in view of Clause 42 of the agreement with regard to steel over-weight Claim No. 2, could not have been awarded by the Arbitrator; that as regards Claim No. 4, payment had to be made to other contractors for this work; for Claim No. 12, it is contended that no oral evidence was allowed to be led by the Arbitrator; that additional condition No. 1 of agreement disentitles the contractor to claim damages; that the claim of damages is prohibited; that delay is on the part of the petitioner and that there is a bar to claim enhancement under the agreement; that the contractor is not entitled to the compensation. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Rohtagi, Counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator is an expert on the subject; that there is no objection on the ground of misconduct on double damages alleged against the Arbitrator and there is no allegation of travelling beyond the agreement; that the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent are beyond the objections raised on record and that the submissions are dehors the objections; that Claim No. 14 awarded by the Arbitrator, has nothing to do with the power of the Arbitrator and the same has been awarded on merits; that the Arbitrator has not awarded any forbidden item; that Claims A to D do not relate to any forbidden item; that the delay is on account of the respondent, which is suggested by the hinderence register; that there is a delay of 31 months which has occasioned because of the respondents.