UNION OF INDIA Vs. JEEVAT CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Finally.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Respondents on instructions, submits that the Respondents are not pressing claim no.2 of security deposit and claim no.10 about interest on the work done payment. The Petitioner has challenged the same only. In view of this, I am inclined to modify the award to the above reasons. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and in fact modified the awards under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short "Act"). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority vs. R.S. Sharma and Company, New Delhi (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 80 has maintained the modified award. Even otherwise, there is no bar under section 34 of the Act to modify the award in situation like where the parties themselves not pressing the claim. Now at this particular point, it is difficult for Court to deny the modification and delay the proceedings further by quashing the award solely on this ground. The early disposal is main object of the said Act.

(3.) CONSIDERING the rival contentions as well as the reasonings so given, I see that there is nothing to interference in the proceedings. It is well established within the frame work of law. The award now modified as agreed to the extent of clause item nos. 2 and 10 as referred above and the rest of the award as well as reasonings are maintained.