Delhi Development Authority vs V.S.S. Jetley
1995 Latest Caselaw 268 Del

JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

1. This is an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Single Judge on 18-1-1994 making the Award dated 29-3-1989 a rule of the Court after overruling the objections of the appellant.

2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that while Clause 25 of the agreement requires the Arbitrator to give reasons for the Award the learned Arbitrator has chosen not to give any reasons in regard to Award under Claims 13, 14 and 15 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the Award and remitted the matter to the Arbitrator.

3. Claims 13, 14 and 15 read as follows :-

"13. Claimant claims a sum of Rs. 1,09,674.35 being the addl. rate of which the contractor is allegedly entitled on work done after 5-4-1982 because the work was prolonged by reasons of lapses, defaults and breaches of the deptt.

14. Claimant claims under Clause 10(c) of the Contract (a) Rs. 30,490.74 being enhancement in the wages of labour (b) Rs. 15,170 for rise in the rate of bricks consequent to Govt. notification in May 1982.

15. Claimant claims a sum of Rs. 15,750 because of rise in price of grit badarpur and jamuna sand, steel and wooden manufactured item, cartage etc. that under went hike is said to because of rise in labour wages."

4. Learned Arbitrator has made an Award in these terms "Claims No. 13, 14 and 15 are partly justified to the extent of Rs. 62,986." It may be noticed that Claim No. 13 is for a sum of Rs. 1,09,674, Claim No. 14 is for a sum of Rs. 45,660.74 and Claim No. 15 is for a sum of Rs. 15,750. The learned Single Judge, no doubt, could have remitted the matter on the ground of want of reasons, but had, in our opinion, rightly made an attempt to find out the plausible basis for the computation made by the Arbitrator, and in that process mentioned as follows :-

"According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. P. Sharma the petitioner began the work in the present case with effect from April 6, 1981. The stipulated date for the completion of the work was January 5, 1982. However, the petitioner could complete the work finally on August 10, 1982 as per the completion certificate issued by the respondent on account of the lapses and defaults on the part of the respondents. However, the petitioner claimed a higher rate with effect from April 5, 1982 only, vide Ex. C-8. He demanded the contractor's percentage at 85% of the estimated cost from the above said date i.e. a rise of 23% of the above rate which was allowed to him. Thus, the petitioner claimed the escalation charges from April 5, 1982 to August 10, 1982 only. The petitioner executed the work to the tune of Rs. 4,76,843 during the period from April 5, 1982 to August 10, 1982 without any enhancement, out of which the secured advanced paid to him in full was Rs. 1,33,083. In this way, the net work done was to the tune of Rs. 3,43,762. The petitioner's percentage was calculated at the rate of 62% of the estimated cost as is evident from the letter dated March 27, 1991 addressed to the petitioner namely, M/s. S. S. Jetley. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner there was delay in the completion of work on account of the lapses on the part of the respondent which led to the escalation charges as the petitioner was compelled to pay more for the construction material and more to the labour by way of wages. The petitioner has further placed on record two letters (C-22 and C-33) issued to M/s. K. K. Rathi and M/s. S. S. Jetley by the respondent. The said letters are dated June 10, 1982 and July 7, 1982 wherein the negotiated rates accepted are 87.3% and 90% of the estimated cost. Thus, the petitioner was held entitled to the escalation charges at the rate of 23% on the above amount i.e. Rs. 3,43,762. In this way, the petitioner was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 62,986 on account of Claims No. 13, 14 and 15".

5. It may be seen from the above passage that the learned Single Judge has worked out the amount arrived at by the Arbitrator in the manner calculated mentioned above. It cannot be said that the learned Single Judge was wrong in finding out the formula on the basis of which the Arbitrator arrived at the consolidated amount of Rs. 62,986 for the Claims 13, 14 and 15. If that be the plausible basis for the Award, we do not find any reason for merely setting aside the Award and remitting it, at this distance of time, to the Arbitrator. In fact, the learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to assail the merits of this formula mentioned by the learned Single Judge for arriving at the sum of Rs. 62,986. All that the learned counsel for the appellant contended before us was that the Award is bad for want of reasons. Yet another contention raised by him was that the respondent has filed a reply in this appeal and said something which does not conform to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment. We are of the view that there is no need to go into the reply filed by the respondent in this appeal. The question before us is whether the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is not sufficient to support the Award. A further contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in another matter which came up before another learned Single Judge of this Court, an Award made by the same Arbitrator was set aside for want of reasons. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that is a precedent which ought to have been followed by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, there is no such error committed by the learned Single Judge in this case. If in the other case also the Court had discovered the formula by which the figure was arrived at, perhaps that Award might have also been made a Rule of the Court. Ultimately, an Award cannot be set aside on the basis that another Award made by the same Arbitrator was set aside.

6. We may point out that in fact the amount actually awarded by the Arbitrator is a like less than 23% of Rs. 3,43,762, and if the amount is slightly less than 23% of the claim made by the claimant was awarded, the appellant can have no grievance.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that though the Arbitrator has not given the reasons for the Award, the learned Single Judge has discovered the correct basis for the Award and there is no need to set aside the Award, at this distance of time, and remit the . same to the Arbitrator. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

8. Appeal dismissed.