(1.) The DDA awarded contract for the work "Construction of 96 Houses under SFS Category III and Scooter Sheds Grade III at Paschim Puri, G-17, area South of Distt. Centre, New Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. Arbitrator was appointed. Total claims of the petitioner were 14 and counter-claim was 1 before the learned Arbitrator for adjudication and award. The arbitrator has made and published the award bearing No. ARB/SCK/20/109 dated 7.6.1994.
(2.) The award was filed in this Court. Notice was issued to both the parties and both have filed the objections. DDA's objections are IA No. 4176/1995. The petitioner has filed objections by means of IA No. 7711/1995 which are qua claim No. 10 only. The perusal of the objections of DDA would indicate that these objections are broadly on the following premise:
(3.) Claim No. 1 was for a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards refund of earnest money/security deposit in the shape of bank guarantee lying with the DDA. The petitioner wanted the DDA to release the said bank guarantee. The argument of the DDA was that the final bill prepared was in the negative and, therefore, there was no question of releasing the guarantee in favour of the petitioner. The learned Arbitrator has not given any reasons while directing that the bank guarantee be released in favour of the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned arbitrator has remarked that the DDA wanted to encash the bank guarantee but the same was not allowed by the High Court which passed injunction order against the DDA. The Arbitrator has recorded that "in the absence of any letter of demand from Respondent(s) after finalising the bill, that this amount is to be deposited, I, decide that the Respondent(s) has no right to keep the bank guarantee, and, the same shall be released in favour of claimant(s)". Reason is clearly given in support of this direction. The argument of DDA that the final bill was in minus would be of no consequence inasmuch as, after the adjudication of the claims and counter claims, the learned Arbitrator has found that it is the petitioner who was to receive the amount from the DDA. Once the DDA has to make payment under the award, question of withholding of the security deposit in the form of bank guarantee even otherwise does not arise. This objection qua claim No. 1 is clearly unfounded.