KANISHKA BUILDERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 4135/1994 in CS(OS) No. 4610A/1992.

(2.) THESE are objections filed by the applicant/DDA against the Award dated 1.12.1992 of the Sole Arbitrator. The Counsel for the DDA, on instructions, has confined his challenge to Claim Nos. 1, 4, 7 and 8 as made by the non -objector before the Arbitrator.

(3.) THE second objection raised by the objector is with respect to Claim No. 4. In this claim, the non -objector has been awarded payment of additional cost in execution beyond the stipulated date of completion. It is a fact appearing from the record and which cannot be challenged in objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that the objector has in fact been found guilty of delays and prolongation of the contract beyond the contractual period. This becomes more than abundantly clear because the respondent itself extended the contractual period without levy of liquidated damages. If the contractor was guilty of delay, then surely extension would only be granted subject to levy of liquidated damages. The Arbitrator is thus justified in awarding this claim. Accordingly, the challenge to this claim fails. However, I may note that since there is already an entitlement as claimed by the non objector for 10CC in claim No. 1, if and when the Arbitrator awards an amount under the head of Clause 10CC then such amount will be reduced from this claim awarded under claim No. 4.