SHANTI DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners entered into a contract with the respondent No. I for execution of the work of construction of 900 SFS houses at Sarita Vihar. During the execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties and accordingly arbitration agreement contained in the said contract was invoked. The respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.2 as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes arising between the parties. During the aforesaid proceedings before the arbitrator the predecessor-in-interest Shri O.P.Sharma expired on 6.2.1991 and the petitioners were brought on record. The arbitrator, after hearing the parties and after receiving evidence made and published his award on 15.11.1991. The said award was filed in this court, on receipt of which objections have been Filed by the respondent No.1. By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the said objections filed by respondent No.1 as also the suit pending in this court arising out of application filed by the petitioners for filing the award in this court.

(2.) The award passed by the arbitrator is in respect of claims No. 1,2 & 3 of the petitioners. CLAIM NO.1:

(3.) This claim relates to a claim of petitioners claiming an amount of Rs.3.51 lacs for deprivation of profit/loss because of unjustified action taken by the respondent No.1 in curtailing the scope of the work and awarding it to another agency. In order to appreciate the contents of the aforesaid claim it would be necessary to provide certain background facts giving rise to the aforesaid claim of the petitioners. The contract awarded to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was for construction of 18 blocks. Subsequently however, by a letter dated 10.8.1988 the respondent No.1 curtailed the work and restricted the scope of work from 18 blocks to 14 blocks. According to respondent No.1 the aforesaid action of curtailing the construction work to 14 blocks had to be taken in view of the stay order issued by Court. It was also stated that the said action of curtailing the work to 14 blocks is justified in terms of clause 13 of the agreement which provides that the respondent could curtail the scope of the work for which the contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation. A notice dated 10.8.1998 (Ex.C-2) as required under clause 13 of the agreement was also served on the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of curtailing the work from 18 blocks to 14 blocks and also submitted that provisions of clause 13 of the agreement do not apply to the tacts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as such provision would apply only when the work was not required, whereas in the present case the work of construction of 4 blocks was required and was got done by respondent No.1 through another agency at later stage.