IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS (OS) No. 568-A of 2006
Reserved on: 23rd February 2012
Decision on: 26th March 2012.
METRO ELECTRIC CO. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sumiti Anand, Advocate.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUDGMENT
26.03.2012
1. These are objections filed by the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act') to an Award dated 17th May 2000 passed by the learned Arbitrator arising out of the contract for construction of a local shopping centre near A-Block, Naraina Vihar by the DDA in favour of Metro Electric Company ('MEC'/`Claimant').
2. There were five items of claim filed by MEC before the learned Arbitrator. Claim No.1 was for a sum of Rs.2,56,210/- on account of final bill. The work had been completed by MEC on 7th January 1987. The claim was bifurcated into Sections A to G. The stand of the DDA was that since the Claimant had not completed the work, the contract was rescinded and CS (OS) 568-A/2006 Page 1 of 4 the balance work was got executed at the risk and cost of the Claimant through another contractor. It was submitted by the DDA that after making the necessary recoveries, the Claimant was entitled to only Rs.31,158. After analyzing the evidence, the learned Arbitrator determined the justified amounts against each of items with reasons.
3. In the objections filed by the DDA to the above decision, it is not pointed out in what manner the learned Arbitrator has committed an error apparent to the face of the record. According to the Claimant, it had completed the work on 7th January 1987 and whereas, the rescinding of the contract by the DDA was only in July 1998, clearly the original time period was exceeded. In the circumstances, the claims of the Claimant could not be said to be without basis. Once, the learned Arbitrator held that the Claimant had proved that he had completed the work on 7th January 1987, the rescinding of the contract by the DDA in July 1988 was indeed not justified.
4. Under Claim No.2, the MEC had claimed refund of the security deposit of Rs.45,000/-. The only objection to this is that the decision is not based on any evidence. Once, the learned Arbitrator has held that the Claimant has completed the work in all respects, the ordering of the refund of the security amount to the extent of Rs.38,076.50 which had been deducted had CS (OS) 568-A/2006 Page 2 of 4 to follow and that was what was awarded to the claimant. The Award cannot be said to suffer from any illegality on this score.
5. The DDA objects to the Award in respect of 63 MCBs on the ground that the DDA had already paid for these MCBs to another agency which was provided in a separate agreement. It is submitted by the DDA that this part of the Award is not based on any evidence. Noting that 102 MCBs were handed over by MEC to the DDA, after accounting for the payment made for 36 MCBs, it was held that 66 MCBs were still to be paid. The reasons given by the learned Arbitrator are cogent and are based on the evidence placed on record and do not call for any interference.
6. Under Claim No.3, damages were claimed to the extent of Rs.91,830. The learned Arbitrator has allowed only the labour component for the work done till 1st June 1984 and has calculated the increase at Rs.10,283. This Court is unable to find any ground having been made out for interference. Since the increase was beyond 10% it cannot be said that the provisions of Clause 10(c) were not adhered to.
7. As regards the claim for interest at 18% per annum, the learned Arbitrator has awarded simple interest at 7.5% per annum from 5th September 1988 to 17th May 2000.
CS (OS) 568-A/2006 Page 3 of 4
8. No ground has been made out for any interference with the impugned Award. The objections are therefore rejected. The impugned Award is affirmed and made a rule of the Court. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. The suit is disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
MARCH 26, 2012 bs CS (OS) 568-A/2006 Page 4 of 4