JOGINDER KUMAR GANDHI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded the work contract by respondent No.l in respect of which an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.l. The tenders for the aforesaid work were invited on 11.7.1986. After filing of the said award in this court, the petitioner filed an objection which is registered as I.A.No.4865/87.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner and I propose to dispose of the objections claimwise and the suit, by this common order.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the objection raised as against the aforesaid award. According to him , important facts relevant tor deciding the aforesaid issues were not taken of and considered by the arbitrator. Counsel also submitted that the Instant contract was for doing the balance work left out of the original contract in favour of a third party. He submilted that the original contract was executed through M/s. G.D.Tewari & Co. and in respect of the aforesaid contract, respondent MNo.1 actually made payment to M/s.G.D.Tewari & Co. for Pumping out water caused by spring in respect of excavation for sewer lines and, therefore, similar relief and benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner He also submitted that the arbitrator failed to give a speaking award and no reasons have been given in coming to the aforesaid conclusions.