DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M/S. SATYA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under Sec. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugning the judgment of the court below dated 1.4.2003 whereby objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act have been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant awarded the respondent/claimant working of providing and laying "dense asphaltic concrete works" in J.J. colony at Kalkaji, New Delhi. With regard to this work awarded, disputes and differences arose between the parties which were referred to arbitration by the letter dated 27.11.1990 of the competent authority. The Arbitrator entered into the reference on 30.11.1990 and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence passed the impugned Award dated 28.7.1992. By the impugned award, the respondent/claimant has been awarded under claim no.1 an amount of Rs. 1,94,696.84.00 towards balance payment due for work done and an amount of Rs. 14,444.00 under claim no.2 by releasing of security of the respondent/claimant with the appellant. Claim no.3 of damages was dismissed and claim no.4 with respect to interest was awarded at 12% per annum simple in favour of the respondent/claimant instead of 18% per annum as claimed by the respondent/claimant. Interest has been awarded from 2.12.1987 till the date of the Award. The court below by the impugned judgment has awarded interest at 8% per annum simple from the date of the Award till realization.

(3.) As regards claim no.1, the issue was as to whether or not any work was done by the respondent/claimant after 7.10.1980. In this regard, the Arbitrator has referred to the Measurement Book of the appellant itself which held that the work was done after 7.10.1980 as shown by the entries in the Measurement Book on 10.10.1980 and 13.10.1980. In fact the entry in the Measurement Book no. 722 on 13.10.1980 shows the work having been completed. The Arbitrator in the Award also notes that the claim of the appellant was that the work was defective but this defence was unjustified because there was no notice issued of defective work and that in fact payment was also released with respect to the first running bill at reduced rates and which would not have been done if the work was defective i.e the first running bill payment was made at part rates only. The relevant observations of the Arbitrator with respect to claim no.1 reads as under :-