Vijay Nayyer vs Delhi Development Authority
1999 Latest Caselaw 791 Del

ORDER

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. These objections are to the Award dated 23rd August, 1984 of the Arbitrator raised by the respondents - DDA in IA.1199/86.

2. There are two principal objections raised by the respondent - DDA in IA.1199/86 to the Award.

3. The first objection to the Award is that there was no requisite exten- sion of time for making and the Award is, therefore, without jurisdiction. Mr. Arya, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a letter dated 2.8.1984 issued by the Executive Engineer. Housing Division No. XI, DDA, New Delhi to the Arbitrator which records that the respondent's office has no objection for the extension of time to give the Award upto 31st August, 1984. In view of this express extension of time granted by the respondent DDA, there is no merit in this objection particularly when the Award was delivered on 23rd August, 1984, within the extended period. The same is accordingly dismissed.

4. The second objection to the Award is that insofar as it refers to award of a sum of Rs. 51,474/- based upon an admission by the respondent - DDA. In reply to this objection the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an admission made by the respondent-DDA in its reply filed before the Arbitrator in which the reference is made in the following terms to Annexure - I:

"The amount due to the contractor as per the records available in this office is given at annexure-I." The Annexure-I reads as follows:

"Statement of Payments

1. Release of Part rates 32,506/-

     2.   Balance Measurements          7,229/-
     3.   E I/S I (Not approved 
          by S.E.)                      11,739/-
     4.   Clause 10 'C'                 9,177/-
          Total Payment :               60,651/-"

 

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that according to the afore-

said admission made by the respondent-DDA in its reply, the amount of Rs. 51,474/- which is the total of the first 3 items in the said Annexure (A-I) therefore stood admitted by the respondent - DDA.

6. In view of this express admission regarding payment of Rs. 51,474/-, there is no merit in the second objection also. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-DDA has also referred to Objection No. (vi) of IA.1199/86 in respect of the Claim No. 2 & states that there is no evidence regarding increase in labour charges. Against a claim of Rs. 30,000/- for escalation of labour charges, the Arbitrator has awarded only Rs. 9,177/-. In reply to the Claim No. 2 the plea of the respondent-DDA is that nowhere on the record of the case any evidence as to the rise in the wages of the labour was produced by the contractor. However, the plea taken in the objection to this claim by the DDA is only to the effect that the notification supporting in rise in wages was not produced by the claimant in respect of the Claim No. 2. Accordingly, there is no merit in the said objection. The same is accordingly dismissed.

8. Accordingly all the remaining objections raised by the respondent-DDA in IA. 1199/86 are dismissed.

9. The Award dated 23rd August, 1984 is made a Rule of the Court.

10. It is clarified that the interest awarded under the Award will be from the date of the filing of petition under Sections 14/17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 by the petitioner to the date of the passing of the decree by the Court and not upto the date of payment. Thereafter the inter- est will be at 6 per cent from the date of the decree until realisation.

11. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.