Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
1998 Latest Caselaw 331 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondents-Union of India under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated August 14,1995.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant entered into an Agreement with the respondents Union of India for work of Main Athletic Stadium at Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi SH: Structural Framework Group II vide agreement No. EE/CI/AG/80-81/2. The disputes and differences arose between the parties and Mr.S.S. Juneja, Arbitrator in the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, New Delhi was appointed by the Chief Engineer (NDZ) I, CPWD, New Delhi under his letter No.F(43)83 A&C (NDZ) dated July 16, 1991 as sole arbitrator to decide and make the Award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of Clause 25 of the Agreement execluded between the parties. The claimant filed the statement of claims and the respondents filed the counter statement of facts along with counter claims while repudiating the contentions raised in the claims statement.

3. The following claims were referred before the Arbitrator:

"Claim No.1 Claim for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of shifting of hutments and stores, equipments, including tower crane from the allotted area to clear the site for construction of roads and parks.

Award: Rs.77,700/-.

Claim No.2: Claim for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for additional set of form work necessitated due to alleged delay on the part of the Department in finalisation of design, drawings and details in respect of inclined beams and issue of drawings for inner columns.

Award: Rs. 1,75,000/-.

Claim No.3: The contractor alleges that only less quantity of cement was received in bags. He claims a sum of Rs.80,000/- on this account.

Award: Rs.31,757/-.

Claim No.4: Claim for a sum of Rs.7,32,500/- on account of steel sections of over weight issued by the Department.

Award: Rs.61,428/-.

Claim No.5: Claim for a sum of Rs.16,000/- on account of alleged excess deduction made by the Department for issue of cement at site instead of CPWD godown at Netaji Nagar.

Claim was withdrawn by the claimants.

Claim No.6: The contractor claims the following on account of prolongation of contract period from 15 months to over 24 months.

(a) A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of salary of supervisory staff and office establishment.

(b) A sum of Rs.90,000/- on account of use of transport vehicles for longer period by about 9 months.

(c) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of difference in cost of materials, such as stone and sand aggregate, shuttering materials etc.

(d) A sum of Rs.33,50,000/- on account of under utility of labour and tools and plants. Award: Rs.60,000/-.

Claim No.7 The contractor alleges that Japanese steel issued by the Department and collected by him was not allowed to be used on the work due to which the same had to be returned. He claims a sum of Rs.10,000/- on this account.

Claim was withdrawn by the claimants.

Claim No.8: Claim for an extra payment of Rs.1,50,000/- for curing recasting reinforced cement by means of steam.

Award: Rs.1,07,500/-.

Claim No.9: Claim for a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- on account of additional expenditure incurred in provision of form work, moulds, casting bed etc. for recasting of seating tires instead of cast in site seating tiers which not catered for in the contract rate.

Award: Rs.1,55,000/-.

Claim No.10: Claim for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for provision of circular form work.

Award: Rs.19,976/-.

Claim Noll: Claim for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the amount deducted by the Department on account of labour employed on the contractors behalf for hacking, rectification, repair works etc.

Award: Rs.20,000/- by way of refund.

Claim No.12: Claim for a sum of Rs.85,000/- on account of deductions effected by the Department for low cube strength of concrete.

Claim rejected by the learned Arbitrator.

Claim No. 13: The contractor claims that the final bill amount is Rs.2,65,03,486.12(gross) against the final bill for Rs.2,40,87,796/-(gross) prepared by the Department.

Award: Rs.2,21,403/-.

Claim No.14: The contractor claims the following on account of statutory escalation in the cost of POL and labour.

(i) A sum of Rs.1,19,738.97 on account of statutory increase in the cost of POL.

(ii) A sum of Rs.1,98,375/- on account of statutory increase in the wages of labour.

Claim was rejected by the Arbitrator.

Claim No.15: Claim for interest @Rs.21% per annum from 14.3.83 till the date of refund of Rs.1.00 lakh with quarterly rests as compensation for encashment of bank guarantee No.U/9/81 dated 10.3.81 for Rs.1.00 lakh.

This claim was rejected by the Arbitrator.

Counter Claim No.1:The Department claims a sum of Rs. 1,50,656.15 on account of final bill adjusted on 8.2,1983. No amount is awarded by the Arbitrator.

Counter claim No.2: The Department claims a sum of Rs.4,17,636/- on account of recovery under Clause 42 of the agreement for not returning the excess steel got issued by the contractor from the Department.

Arbitrator disallowed this claim.

Counter claim No.3: The Department claims a sum of Rs.32,370/- on account of levy of compensation under Clause 2 of the agreement, for delay in completion of work by the contractors.

This counter claim was disallowed.

Counter Claim No.4: The Department claims payment of pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the amount due from the contractor.

This claim was rejected.

Counter claim No.5: The Department claims the cost of arbitration.

Ordered to bear their own costs.

Counter claim No.6: The Department claims Rs. 10,558.70 as recovery on account of incomplete consolidation of earth filled under plinth and side of foundation.

The counter claim No.6 was rejected.

4. The learned Arbitrator has assigned detailed reasons on the basis of evidence on record and has given his findings on due appreciation and application of mind. It will not, therefore, be open for this Court to reappraise similar claims which have been elaborately examined in the other connected petition i.e. Suit No.20 18-A/95 where the objections filed by the respondents have been dismissed. For the reasons as stated in Suit No.2018-A/95 the objections filed by the respondents are dismissed and the Award dated August 14, 1995 is made Rule of the Court and decree in terms of the same is passed. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

5. There will be no order as to costs.