Delhi High Court
B. Ess Kay Construction Co. vs Delhi Development Authority on 15 November, 2007
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent / DDA to the award made on 19.03.1999 by the sole arbitrator. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent / DDA took me through the award. As many as 18 claims were considered by the learned arbitrator and a total sum of approximately 4.5 lakhs has been awarded in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent Along with interest @ 12% on the awarded amount from 25.11.1995 till the date of award and @ 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment or decree, whichever is earlier.
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted, with specific reference to claim Nos. 1 to 3 which pertain to certain rebates, that the arbitrator had completely gone wrong in allowing the claim in respect of the said amounts of rebate mentioned under the claims. With regard to claim No. 12 which was also discussed in detail, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the arbitrator has also gone completely wrong in recording a finding against the respondents and in favor of the petitioner.
3. Similarly, in respect of claim No. 5, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the arbitrator ought not to have awarded the sum of Rs 95,000/- on account of providing bricks with mortar in the openings left by the previous agency. It is an admitted position that the work that was awarded to the petitioner was the work which was left over by the previous contractor. The question of providing bricks with mortar as claimed by the petitioner arose because the previous contractor had left various holes in the partially completed brick work. The work was also left in different stages in Block Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 to 12. The petitioner had to fill in as many as 9811 holes, the details of which were given as per Ex. C-11. These holes were in different locations and at different heights and as such the work of filling these holes with bricks work and mortar was very difficult and involved extra labour and wastage of cement and mortar. It is on the basis of this that the learned arbitrator has awarded the amount of Rs 95,000/- as claimed by the petitioner.
4. After having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the objections that are being raised by the respondents are merely factual in nature. The learned arbitrator has considered all the claims in detail and has gone through the evidence which has been led by the parties. The arbitrator has arrived at conclusions of fact. This Court, while considering objections to an award, does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot examine each claim as an appellate court would do in respect of issues which have been decided by the trial court. This Court will also not substitute its views in place of the arbitrator's, particularly when no patent illegality is pointed out.
5. Considering these factors, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of fact and the conclusions arrived at by the learned arbitrator. The only interference that is called for is with regard to different rates of interest that the learned arbitrator has imposed upon the respondents. Accordingly, I direct that only one rate of interest and that is 12% per annum be awarded in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, the objections are dismissed and the award is modified to the extent that the interest shall be @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount from 25.11.1995 till the actual payment is made.
CS (OS) 2019A/1997
The objections filed by the respondent vide IA No. 1600/1998 have been disposed of. Consequently, the award as modified has become executable. The suit stands disposed of.
