PURI AND COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award was made on reference of disputes which arose between the claimant and the respondent on 19.11.1992. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent has filed objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Mr.V.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent has contended that the award of the arbitrator in relation to Claim No.2(A)(i) is wholly unjustified on the ground that no reasons for awarding a sum of Rs. 5,030.00 to the claimant has been given under the award. In support of his contention he has cited College of Vocational Studies Vs. S.S. Jaitely (AIR 1987 Delhi 134).

(2.) Another serious challenge of learned counsel for the objector is with regard to the award of amount of Rs. 75,806.00 to the claimant for penal rate recovery. Mr.Sharma has contended that the learned arbitrator has not taken into consideration Clause 42 of the Agreement. Under Clause 42 of the agreement, if consumption was found to be more than the theoretical consumption plus permissible valuation, the credit ought to have been given to the respondent, Mr.Sharma has contended that on this score the finding of the arbitrator, is wrong and arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings.

(3.) I do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The arbitrator has discussed in detail that respondents had not taken into consideration the extra quantity required for 88 sq. meter of plinth protection and the effect of factual position that cement bags issued from store were under-weight. While calculating tor steel, the theoretical consumption variation were worked out separately for each dia bar, which was not provided in the agreement and no allowance was given for tor steel being over-weight the record of which were maintained by the respondent. The arbitrator has also discussed that with regard to SI Pipes, no allowance has been given for portion of pipes going inside the sockets. The arbitrator considered all the material on record and has come to the finding that the penal recovery was unjustified and, therefore, has allowed a sum of Rs. 75,806.00 to the claimant. I do not see any illegality in the award of the arbitrator on this score.