BATRA CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded the work contract for construction of some dwelling units at Dilshad Garden. Delhi by the respondent No.1 and a contract was executed between the parties. During the course of execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties and therefore, the said disputes were referred to be adjudicated upon through the process of arbitration by appointing respondent No. 2 as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, made and published his award on 14th October, 1087.

(2.) An objection was filed as against the filing of the aforesaid objection, I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the respondent No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid objection as also with regard to the issue of making the award a rule of the court. Mr. D.P. Sharma appearing for the petitioner, pressed the objections passed by the arbitrator as against claim Nos. 4, 9 and counter-claim No.1. Claim No.4 relates to a claim of the contractor/petitioner for payment of extra amount tor polishing mosaic floors amounting to Rs. 83,201.00 . According to the petitioner the mosaic floors were wax polished and thereafter saw dust was spread over these floors and , therefore,-the petitioner is entitled to payment for extra amount, since such work was not provided for in the specifications. The arbitrator, however, rejected the claim holding that polishing includes wax polishing and spreading of saw dust is the normal practice and therefore the aforesaid claim is not admissible.

(3.) The next objection raised is with regard to the award passed by the arbitrator as against Claim No. 9. According to the counsel appearing for the petitioner the award passed by the arbitrator in respect of the aforesaid claim No. 9 contains clerical mistakes. He has brought to my notice the calculation of the arbitrator recorded as 4.28 X 31 % = 1.32.00. Learned counsel pointed out that while coming to the said calculations the arbitrator committed the mistake of recording 4.28 in place of 3.55 and according to him the calculations should have been read as follows:-