SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a contract on October 11, 1989 whereby the petitioner was required to carry out the work of development of parks and RSP at Paschim Puri, Pocket GH-14, Zone G-17. It is not disputed on both sides that the work was executed by the petitioner and the payment on account of the same under the final bill prepared by the respondent was made to the petitioner. The payment was received by the petitioner without demur. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 1,91,169.28 from the respondent along with interest, etc. The respondent, however, disputed the claim of the petitioner. The dispute with regard to the above said sum of money and interest was referred to the arbitration of respondent No. 2, Shri R.J. Bakhru, in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on April 9, 1991 and made his award on August 28, 1992. The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,91,169/- in favour of the petitioner. The claim was based upon rate and unit provided in item No. 9 of the Schedule of Quantities. This item reads as follows :- S. No. Description Qty Unit Rate Amount 9. Grassing with doob grass i/c watering and maintenance of the lawn for 30 days or more till the grass forms a thick lawn free from weeds and fit for moving i/c supplying good earth if needed in rows 5 cm apart in earlier direction. 3275.73 sqm Sqm. Rs. 37.65 (Rs. thirty seven and P. sixty five only) Rs. 1233/-

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was entitled to payment at the rate of Rs. 37.65 per square metre of the work executed by him.

(3.) THE respondent not being satisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, filed its objection under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, being I.A. No. 7240 of 1993. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award of the arbitrator is vitiated on account of the obvious mistake apparent on the face of the record. She also invited my attention to the award of Shri N. Lakshmiah between the same parties, namely the petitioner and the respondent in another identical matter in which the same item (item No. 9) was the subject-matter of interpretation. In that case the arbitrator came to the conclusion that the rate mentioned in item No. 9 suffered from clerical error and the actual rate on the basis of which the parties entered agreement was Rs. 37.65 per 100 square metres. Learned counsel also pointed out that this award has already been made a rule of the court. He invited my attention to the following observations of Shri N. Lakshmiah :-