ANANT RAJ AGENCIES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this suit, the award of an Arbitrator dated 29. 11. 1995, is sought to be made Rule of Court. The respondent/delhi Development authority (DDA) has objected by filing application under Sections 30/33 of the indian Arbitration Act, 1940, being IA No. 5094/1996. This order will dispose of objections by the DDA.

(2.) SEVERAL grounds for setting aside of the award were made. However, during the hearings, Mr. D. S. Mahendru, learned counsel for the defendant, confined the attack to the award to three heads. The Arbitrator had, in relation to claim No. 2, for Rs. 33,69,445/-, on account of loss suffered in execution of work beyond the stipulated date of completion of work (due to increase in prices of material and other heads), granted Rs. 13,51,286/ -. The ground raised is that the Arbitrator failed to appreciate other parts of contract such as clause 10 and clause 10cc. It is also alleged that such an amount could not have been awarded as there was no proof or evidence on behalf of the claimant. The DDA also contends that the Arbitrator failed to take into consideration the evidence led by it and that the formula adopted by him in awarding the said amount was unjustified.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the DDA relied upon an order of this Court in CS (OS) 2937-A/1995, in relation to the same parties. In that case also, the Court held that if the contract provides for a structured formula to determine escalation, claims in that regard have to be calculated only on that basis and not on any other formula. This was based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. U. Kashyap, 1999 (1) Arb. LR 88 (Del.) (DB ). Learned counsel for the claimant/petitioner did not dispute the existence of an identical structured formula, in the present contract, and submitted that the decision in Kashyap"s case (supra), would equally govern the facts of this case, on a fair reading of the order in CS (OS) No. 2937-A/1995, dated 18. 8. 2006. Therefore, the objection of DDA, on this account, has to succeed.