SUKUMAR CHAND JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant entered into a contract agreement with the respondent for development of land at Rohini Phase II, New Delhi by way of construction Peripheral Storm Water Drainage of Blocks A, B, C, D, Sector XVIII, Rohini. The contract agreement entered into between the parties contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 25. During the course of execution of the contract disputes arose between the parties and the appellant invoked the arbitration clause and requested for appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement to adjudicate the claims of the appellant. The persona designata under the contract agreement by letter dated 17.5.1993 appointed Shri M. Kuppuswamy as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered into the reference, received evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter upon hearing the parties made and published his award on 31.8.1994.

(2.) The aforesaid award was filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereupon it was registered as Suit No. 247/1994. Upon receipt of notice of filing of the award in the aforesaid manner the appellant filed his objections. The Additional District Judge took up for consideration the aforesaid objections as also the award filed by the Arbitrator and on consideration of the same and upon hearing the parties dismissed the objections filed by the appellants and made the award a Rule of the Court by his judgment/order dated 30.9.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of his submissions submitted that the appellant is primarily aggrieved by the conclusions and the findings of the Additional District Judge in respect of the award given as against Claim No. 4. It was submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the decision of the Arbitrator in respect of Claim No. 4 is erroneous inasmuch as claim of the appellant under Clause 10(C) of the contract agreement was valid and legal. He submitted that the appellant was entitled to the claim made for the increase in the labour rates by the Government of India which although was made effective from 1.5.1989 was accepted by the respondent subsequent to the execution of the contract agreement with the appellant and therefore, the amount claimed in respect of the aforesaid hike of the labour rates was justified. I have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the aforesaid issue, who submitted that the aforesaid hike and increase of wages of labour was circulated under Delhi Administration's Notification dated 28.4.1989 and effective from 1.5.1989. Therefore, it was submitted that when the aforesaid contract was executed there was already increase in the wages of labour and the said factor was also taken note of while agreeing upon the rates in terms of the contract agreement.