Delhi High Court
Sh. M.N. Arora vs D.D.A. on 24 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 128 (2006) DLT 39
Author: R Jain
Bench: R Jain
JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
IA No. (to be numbered)
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condensation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay in filing the review application is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. IA No.8730/2005
2. This is an application under Section 149 Read with Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure made on behalf of the respondent-DDA seeking review/modification/clarification of the order dated 14.7.2005 passed by this Court in CS (OS) No.2213A/1995. According to the applicant-DDA the award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 14.5.1997 was challenged by them on all the counts on which the amounts have been awarded to the petitioner-claimant including claim No.8 relating to the award of interest. Though the objections were disposed of by the order dated 14.7.2005 thereby upholding the Award so far as it allowed claims Nos. 2 and 3 of the Contractor and set aside the award so far as it has disallowed the counter claim of the DDA for the sum of Rs.10,94,492/- towards levy of compensation on account of non-completion of work primarily on the ground that it was an 'expected matter' and the Arbitrator could not have entered into the reference qua the said counter claim and make adjudication thereon.
3. The grievance of the applicant/D.D.A. is that its objection in regard to the award towards item No.8 of the Award has not been answered by the order dated 14.7.2005. A reply has been filed to the application. On the other hand another application has been made on behalf of the petitioner-claimant- decree holder for preparation of a decree in consonance and in accordance with the judgment of this Court dated 14.7.2005 and for inclusion of the amount of interest as awarded by the Arbitrator in the decree.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to their respective submission.
5. Though it is not clear as to whether any submissions were actually made in regard to Item No.8 of the Award allowing the interest but assuming that such a submission was made, this Court is of the opinion that the position needs to be clarified because both sides are eager to have such a clarification in that behalf.
6. Learned counsel for the DDA has submitted that the Award of interest awarded by the Arbitrator for the period w.e.f.14.5.1987 and that too at the rate of 12% p.a. is excessive and the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award the interest prior to the period before entering into the reference. It is to be noticed that though the contract was terminated sometimes in the year 1987 and a request for arbitration was made by the claimant/contractor soon after but DDA did not act on the said request and failed to appoint any arbitrator till 1994. Claim Nos. 2 and 3 on which the interest was allowed by the Arbitrator related to the items of extra work executed before termination of the contract and on the amount of security deposited by the claimant/contractor. Since the DDA had taken unduly long time to appoint the Arbitrator despite a request having been made, the Award of the interest by the Arbitrator for the period from 1987 to 1994 and thereafter when the matter remained pending for Arbitrator cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. The rate of 12% on which interest has been awarded cannot be said to be harsh or excessive by any standard having regard to the prevalent rate of interest of Reserve Bank or other banks on which the money was being lent or borrowed during the relevant period e.g. decade of 1980 and middle of 1990s. Therefore, this Court see no force in the objection of the DDA even qua award against Item 8 and upholds the award of the Arbitrator against Item No.8 of the Award as well. Resultantly the judgment of this Court dated 14.7.2005 is liable to and is hereby modified to the extent that the objections of the respondent-DDA against the Award of interest stand dismissed. Consequently the award of the Arbitrator so far as it relates to claim nos. 2, 3 and 8 is hereby made a rule of the Court, all other findings and stipulations in the order remaining unchanged. A decree shall be accordingly followed to the above extent. All the applications stand disposed of accordingly.
