KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arbitrator Shri K.D. Bali, Engineer Member, DDA, rendered his award on September 25, 1982 in regard to which an application has been made by the petitioner under sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act for making it a rule of the court, and objections have been filed by the first respondent for setting aside the same. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :-

(2.) The petitioner and the first respondent entered into an agreement dated February 6, 1988 by virtue of which the petitioner was to execute the work of construction, namely "Convenient Shopping Centre" near multi-storeyed flats at East of Kailash, Pocket II. The stipulated dates of commencement of the work and the completition thereof were February 16, 1988 & August 15, 1988 respectively. It is not disputed by both the parties that the work was actually completed on November 2, 1989. The payment of the final bill was made to the petitioner on March 21, 1991. After the payment of the final bill, the petitioner raised certain disputes which were referred to the abovementioned arbitrator on September 6, 1991. The arbitrator after giving opportunity to both the sides to file documentary evidence and after hearing the parties rendered the award on September 25, 1992. The first respondent not being satisfied with the award filed objections on May 20, 1994.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the award in respect of claims No. 2,3,4,7 and 11 suffer from legal infirmities in as much as the arbitrator has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, misconstrued the agreement and consequently travelled beyond the terms thereof. The main attack of the learned counsel for the respondent is directed against the award of claims No. 8 and 9 of the award. He vehemently contends that the award on these claims suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. He also urges that award on the said items does not disclose any reasons. On the other hand, learned, counsel for the petitioner submits that the award does not suffer from any illegality much less any error apparent on the face of the award. He also contends that the Arbitrator has not traversed beyond the agreement.