M/S. Pt. Muni Ram & Associates (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 1116 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                             FAO(OS) 121/2006
                                     Date of Decision: 01st, April, 2009

      M/S. PT. MUNI RAM & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.             ..... Appellant

                          Through:

                     versus



      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                      ..... Respondent

                          Through:    Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?
      2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
      3. Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?
%                             JUDGMENT (Oral)


MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single

Judge dated 04.01.206 in CS (OS) No. 2531/95 disposing off the

objections against the award dated 30.09.95. The learned Single Judge

while affirming the award set aside the award on Claim No. 1 and Item

No. 7 of Claim No. 7 relating to cutting and straightening of

reinforcement steel bars. The Claimant has come up in appeal against

the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. In so far as Claim No. 1 is concerned, it relates to extra cost of

work done during the extended period of contract. In our view this

aspect is fully covered by the law laid down in the judgment cited as

Delhi Development Authority Vs. K.C. Goyal & Co. 2001 II AD

(DELHI) 116 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. U. Kashyap

1998 VII AD(DELHI) 300. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the

judgment in so far as it sets aside the award on Claim No. 1.

3. In so far as Claim No. 7 pertaining to cutting and straightening

of reinforcement steel bars is concerned, the learned Single Judge has

relied upon the judgment of Narain Das R. Israni Vs. Delhi

Development Authority 126 (2006) DLT 10 in which a learned Single

Judge of this court held as follows:

"19. The position, which emerges from the aforesaid, is that the definition of reinforcement for RCC work is illustrative and not exhaustive. Thus, no extra amount can be recovered for the same in view of the earlier judgment in M/s. Wee Aar Constructive Builders's case (supra). However, simultaneous legal position, which emerges, is that in case the contractor puts DDA to notice during the currency of the contract and DDA does not raise any objection, then amounts can be recovered on this account. It may also be noticed that a correction slip No. 4 was issued in January, 1990 clarifying that cutting would be included. Thus, it appears that there were some doubt over this proposition and, thus, the clarification was issued. Once the contractor has put DDA to notice on this account, it cannot be said that the Award made in this behalf is erroneous. If reference is made to the earlier judgment of M/s. Wee Aar Constructive Builders's case (supra), it would be found that

there is, in fact, no inconsistency in the judicial approach of various judgments. It was observed in paras 19 and 20 as under :-

"19. The two other decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, that is, K.C. Chibbar and Anant Raj Agencies are clearly distinguishable. In both the cases, the petitioner therein had notified the DDA that the cutting of steel or the straightening of steel bars was being treated as an extra item of work. This was not objected to by the DDA. The claim of the petitioner in both the cases was upheld. In the present case, this situation did not arise. No letter or intimation was sent by the petitioner to the respondent. The claim of straightening and cutting the steel bars was made by the petitioner for the first time before the learned Arbitrator. The respondent had no occasion to react (or not to react) to the claim, prior to the arbitral proceedings.

20. In view of these facts, the decision rendered in S.K. Mangla has to be followed. Moreover, this decision also recognizes pragmatic and down-to-earth facts in building contracts."

20. The aforesaid discussion shows that the material aspect taken into consideration by the learned Judge was that while in case the contractor puts the DDA to notice, a different position would emerge; if no such notice is given, then the work of cutting would be included in the already assigned work."

4. We affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge in

Narain Das R. Israni (supra) case and accordingly hold that the part

Item No. 7 of Claim No. 7 relating to cutting and straightening of

reinforcement steel bars as claimed by the appellant cannot be

sustained. We find no error in the reasoning of the learned Single

Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

April 01, 2009 DP