SUDHIR BROS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Sudhir Bros., the appellant in FAO(OS) 152/1995 was awarded the work of construction of 396 LIG Dwelling Units at Pitampura, Pocket-W (Poorvi), including internal services, by the Respondent No.1 Delhi Development Authority (DDA). An agreement was executed between the parties. The disputes that arose between them were referred to the arbitration of Respondent No. 2. The Arbitrators Award was published on 26.12.1992. M/s. Sudhir Bros. filed Suit No. 201-A/1993 for a direction to the arbitrator to file the award dated 26.12.1992 in the court and for the Award to be made rule of the court. Further, the Appellant prayed interest at 18% per annum on the amount awarded together with quarterly rests from the date of the institution till realization. The objections filed by the DDA to the Award were numbered as I.A. No. 5830/1993 in the said suit. By the impugned judgment dated 25.1.1995 by the learned single Judge allowed the objections to the Award as regards Claim Nos. 1 (c), 1 (d), 7 and Counter Claim No.1 of the DDA. As regards the other Claims the Award was made rule of court.

(2.) CLAIM No. 1 (c) to the extent of Rs. 30657.54 pertained to balance payment of labour charges on account of escalation in prices as envisaged under Clause 10C of the Agreement. It was contended by the Appellant that the completion of the contract was delayed beyond the stipulated date of 15.1.1982. Meanwhile there was an escalation in labour charges which was admissible in terms of a Circular of the Chief Engineer (CE), DDA with effect from 1.3.1982. Since the delay in completion of the work was not attributable to it, the Appellant claimed of 24 the aforementioned amount constituting the increase in labour charges after adjusting the amount of Rs. 34557.15 already released to it by the DDA. The learned Arbitrator found that the delay was attributable to the DDA accordingly awarded the Appellant aforesaid amount as claimed. Claim 1(d) likewise related to the increase in the price of bricks payable under Clause 10C of the Agreement. The Arbitrator awarded the Appellant Rs. 86601 as claimed.

(3.) DDAS Counter Claim No. 1 was to the extent of Rs. 444629 being 10% of the tender amount payable to it as compensation for the delay in completion by the Appellant of the work in terms of the contract. The said counter claim was disallowed by the arbitrator on the ground that the delay was attributable to the DDA and they could not be allowed to take advantage of their own default.