DHARAM CONSTRUCTION Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Objections have been filed by the respondent/DDA to the award dated 12.4.1994 passed by the Arbitrator. Ms.Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the DDA has contended that award suffers from various infirmities. She has contended that the Arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. She has also contended that no reasons have been given by the Arbitrator to arrive at the findings on different claims.

(2.) She has contended that finding of the Arbitrator in so far as claim no.3 is concerned, the said award is contrary to the conditions of the contract. She has contended that the Arbitrator has awarded escalation under Clause 10 cc of the Agreement without considering that no escalation under Clause 10 cc ought to have been awarded in favour of the petitioner, if contract has not been validly extended under Clause 5 and action under Clause 2 of the agreement has been taken. In support of her objection she has cited 1992 (2) Arbitration Law Report 498, Bharat Furnishing Co. Vs. DDA 1992 (1) Arbitration Law Report 327 and Sudhir Brothers Vs. DDA 1995 (2) Arbitration Law Report 437. She has contended that once the Superintending Engineer has levied compensation on the petitioner for delay in execution of the work, the Arbitrator was not entitled to award the amount under the said claim and no reason whatsoever has been given by the Arbitrator for awarding a sum of Rs.2,70,000.00 under this claim.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.G.N. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is of no help to her as the compensation levied under clause 2 by the Superintending Engineer does not oust clause 10 cc of the agreement. He has further contended that the Arbitrator has given a definite finding that the work was delayed on account of the breaches on the part of the respondent. He has further contended that the authority cited by counsel for the respondent pertains to clause 10 c which deals with the work during the stipulated period of contract whereas clause 10 cc deals with the extended period of time. He has contended that once the Arbitrator has given a definite finding that the delay was caused on account of the breaches which was the obligation of the respondent, contractor would be entitled for compensation under clause 10 cc.