KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. DDA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of objections under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 raised by the respondent/DDA against the award dated 08.1.1991 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. In the objection petition the respondent/DDA has stated that it seeks to challenge the award made by the Arbitrator in respect of claims No. 2,4,5,6,7 & 8 of the original claims and in respect of additional claims No. 1, 2 & 4 made by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was given a contract for redevelopment of Sarai Khalil involving construction of 138 LIG and 138 MIG houses at Sarai Khalil vide contract dated 2.2.1977. The date of commencement of work was 12.2.1977 and the work was to be completed within one year however, during continuation of the work it was found that there was a stone quarries underneath the land which had been filled up after extraction of the stones. Consequently, foundation design of some of the blocks had to be changed from conventional foundation to pile foundation and in some of the blocks strip foundation was to be done. The contractor/claimant in this case was not competent to do the work of pile foundation therefore an outside agency was hired by DDA to do the work of pile foundation and after completing the work of pile foundation the blocks were handed over to the contractor for rest of the work. It is also apparent from record that there was a stay granted by the High Court and due to stay of the Court the work got delayed and the time for completion of the work was accordingly extended. However, the work could not be completed even within the extended time and the Advisory Board of the respondent closed the work on 20.9.1980 and intimated the contractor about the same. The contractor after closing of the work raised various claims against the respondent and filed a suit before the High Court invoking arbitration clause. The claims raised by the claimant in the suit were directed to be referred to the arbitration. The result was that the respondent appointed Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the contract. When the Arbitrator was proceeding with the claims some additional claims were preferred by the claimant which were also referred by the Engineer -in -Charge to the Arbitrator subject to their admissibility under the contract.

(3.) THE objectors contention is that this claim could not have been allowed since it was petitioners responsibility to keep the watch and ward staff till the building and material were handed over to DDA. It is also submitted that there was no provision in the agreement entered into between the parties providing for payment of watch and ward staff additionally to the contractor.