VERMA CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DDA has filed objections under Sec. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the award dated 9th November 1992 whereby the learned arbitrator allowed certain claims of the petitioner and passed an award in favour of petitioner. The objections have been filed claim -wise and response thereto has been given by claimant (petitioner herein), so they are being dealt with claim -wise.

(2.) Claim No. 1 was made by petitioner for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of amount withheld from bill by DDA (respondent herein) because of quality control. The learned arbitrator allowed this amount observing that out of 57 observations of quality control, 49 paragraphs of observations had already been dropped by quality control organization. DDA had also not filed reduction items statement along with analysis despite opportunity being given by the arbitrator, he, therefore, allowed this claim of Rs. 10,000/ -. Respondent DDA had objected to this claim on the ground that the learned Arbitrator ignored the fact that the amount was withheld on account of quality control and the observations given therein and, therefore, committed misconduct. I consider that the objection raised by respondent DDA is not tenable. The learned arbitrator had taken into consideration the facts as stated before him and gave a reasoned award on this claim.

(3.) Claim No. 2 consisted of four sub -claims namely 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d). DDA had deducted some amount from the bills claiming rebate as per the contract. Claimant had claimed that these rebates were wrongfully claimed by DDA despite the fact that the bills were not paid in accordance with the terms of the contract entitling DDA to claim rebate. The learned arbitrator after considering the dates of payment of bills allowed the claim in respect of sub -claims 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) in full and in respect of 2(a) partly.