LAWS(DLH)-1997-7-95

SATYAM BUILDERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On July 15, 1997
SATYAM BUILDERS Appellant
V/S
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Arbitrator has filed the Award dated 31st July, 1992 alongwith the proceedings in this Court. The same were taken on record and notice of filing of the Award was issued to the parties directing them to file their respective objections. Respondent-Delhi Development Authority filed its objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Reply to these objections was filed by the claimant M/s. Satyam Builders. The Arbitrator allowed the claims of the petitioner and rejected the counter-claim of respondent-DDA by a speaking Award and by assigning reasons.

(2.) The Arbitrator was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by respondent-DDA vide its communication dated 14th July, 1990 to decide the disputes which had arisen between the parties by virtue of powers conferred under the provisions of Clause 25 of the Agreement executed between the parties. Clause 25 of the Agreement stipulated that disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the person appointed by the Engineer Member, DDA. It further stated that in all cases where the amount of claim in dispute is Rs. 75,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) and above, the Arbitrator will give reasons for the Award. The claims as dealt with by the Arbitrator may now be examined and referred to as follows:

(3.) Claim No. 1: The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 5,09,000.00 on account of the work executed but not paid. The Arbitrator examined the evidence on record and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,07,958.84p. (Rs. 1,32,606.84 for the outstanding amount for the work done. Rs. 10,000.00 on account of the amount withheld in earlier bills which was refundable to the claimant. Rs. 65,352.00 towards refund of security). These amounts were awarded against respondent-DDA by consideration of facts and figures which will be indicated from the reading of the Award. The Arbitrator obviously has assigned cogent reasons for awarding these amounts and no material has been placed on record by respondent-DDA to hold otherwise.