PROMINENT ELECTRIC WORKS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 252/1998 and CS(OS) No. 674A/1997 These are the objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated 14.3.1997. The award arises on account of the disputes which arose between the parties with respect to the work of construction of 410 Janta Houses for harijans and landless persons at Peera Garhi, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the work was awarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.9.1983 which prescribed the stipulated date of completion as 24.9.1983. Since the work could not be completed even well after 24.9.1983, the work in question was broken up with respect to the balance work which was of the amount of Rs. 33,292/-. For this balance work of Rs. 33,292/-, a supplementary agreement dated 31.8.1988 was entered into between the parties which prescribed the period for completion of work to be nine months. The work was however completed on 20.3.1993.

(3.) The counsel for the objector/petitioner has challenged the award whereby his claims filed in 1994 have been dismissed as being time barred, because claims filed were with respect to the main contract dated 14.9.1983 and which was already closed when the supplementary agreement dated 31.8.1988 was entered into between the parties. The counsel for the objector has referred to the agreement dated 31.8.1988 which uses instead of word 'closure', the expression "provisional closure". The counsel for the objector therefore contended that all the disputes under the original agreement dated 14.9.1983 continued to survive right till the end when the balance work under the supplementary agreement was ultimately completed on 20.3.1993. The counsel for the objector/petitioner has also very heavily relied upon the final bill dated 18.1.1994. The counsel relying on this final bill has pointed out that this is a consolidated bill for work done both as per the original agreement as also the supplementary agreement. He has further referred to the fact that in the supplementary agreement dated 31.8.1988 there is no date mentioned for completion of work under the contract dated 14.9.1983. Per contra the counsel for the non-objector, however, urges that two views are possible for this expression 'provisional closure' as used in the letter dated 31.8.1988. She has further urged that one of the acceptable views can certainly be as held by the Arbitrator that the original contract was closed whereby the claims under the same ought to have been filed when the same was closed in 1988 and not in 1994 and only the balance work remained to be performed by means of the fresh agreement titled as supplementary agreement thereby nothing remained to be done under the original agreement, and this Court while hearing objections under Sections 30 and 33, has repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the Award if two views are possible. Consequently, the Arbitrator having taken one view which shows that the first contract was closed when the supplementary agreement was signed on 31.8.1988, claims had to be filed within three years from that date so far as the claims under the first contract and which admittedly was not done. It was, therefore, urged that the conclusion on the issue of limitation as held by the Arbitrator, therefore, is clearly justified.