MITTAL ESTATES PRIVATE LTD Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This objection petition has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raising various objections to the award dated 20.11.1996 of the Arbitrator. I am proceeding with the judgment in as much as the counsel for the DDA had argued yesterday and today and neither yesterday nor today the counsel for the non-objector is available. Accordingly, I have no option but to decide the case on merits in as much as Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocate, appearing as the counsel for the non-objector says that he is not in a position to argue the matter.

(2.) Though DDA has raised many objections and many claims running into approximately around 40 in number, however, since except the claims which are discussed below most of the objections pertained to factual issues and therefore were not and could not be seriously pressed by the counsel for the objector.

(3.) That leaves us with claim Nos. 1(e) and (f), claim No. 2.1, claim No. 3.4, claim No. 3.11, claim No. 3.17, claim No. 4.1, claim No. 4.4, claim No. 5, claim No. 6 and claim No. 7.