SUDHIR BROSB Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2008 in C.S.(OS) No.2312/2006 and I.A. No.170/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge has decided the objections to the arbitral award dated 11.11.2006 made by Sh. V.D. Tiwari, sole arbitrator. The contract had been awarded to the appellant for construction of 234 LIG dwelling units at Pitam Pura Pocket-W Poorvi including internal services vide agreement No.23/EE/CDI/80-81. The stipulated date of start of the work was 16.01.1981 and the time of completion was 12 months. However, the work could not be completed by 15.01.1982 (the stipulated date of completion) and the contract spilled over into extra time. Disputes arose between the parties, which were referred to arbitration of the learned arbitrator Mr. V.D. Tiwari by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2005. The appellant was the claimant before the arbitrator. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has set aside the award in respect of claim No.7, counter claim No.2 and varied the rate of interest awarded for a certain period, and deleted the interest awarded for certain other period. The appeal, as filed, impugns the findings of the learned Single Judge on claim No.7 and the denial of interest as aforesaid. At the time of argument learned counsel for the appellant has, however, restricted his submissions only to challenge the setting aside of the award on claim No.7.

(2.) UNDER claim No.7 the appellant/ claimant had claimed 35% over the quoted rates on the amount of work executed after the stipulated date of completion. One of the primary issues before the learned arbitrator was to determine as to which of the parties was responsible for the delay. The learned arbitrator came to a finding of fact that it was the respondent DDA who was wholly responsible for the prolongation of the contract. Founded upon the said delay, the appellant had raised various claims, including claim No.7 for Rs. 21,36,403/-. The learned arbitrator arrived at a finding that the claim was admissible for an amount of Rs.

(3.) ON the other hand, the appellant while resisting the objection had contended that various documents on record of the learned arbitrator establish that at the relevant time the appellant had demanded escalation in cost of construction. The arbitrator had noticed that during the extended period the DDA itself was awarding contracts at rates which were 45% above the appellant's quoted rates. It was also contended that the arbitrator also took note of the continuous price rise and CPWD cost index while awarding the sum of Rs. 3.54,396/-.